Can god be omniscient and omnipotent? Someone lied
No.
Side Score: 64
|
 |
Yes.
Side Score: 73
|
|
|
|
|
8
points
The Answer is obviously No, but how can logic combat faith? How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows? Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent. All knowing? where does free will come in? "Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely; God is all-powerful? Draw your own conclusions." Side: No.
Are you saying he can't be both because of paradoxes like the "can god make a stone he can't move" one? You can find a paradox and use it to defend an argument infinitely, but then the debate doesn't ever move on to more interesting issues. There are other arguments like "why does he let us suffer when he's benevolent and omnipotent" to address, which are more interesting. You can argue against the paradox by saying he created the Earth/Universe/whatever but isn't part of that system, so he's omniscient and omnipotent within it. Side: Yes.
You can argue against the paradox by saying he created the Earth/Universe/whatever but isn't part of that system, so he's omniscient and omnipotent within it. Even if it is omniscient and omnipotent only within that system, that still leaves you with the problem it would be rendered powerless to change anything within that system. The two are logically incompatible. Side: No.
The argument can't move on to discussing the consequences of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being if you don't first settle the argument about whether an omnipotent being is even possible. I.e. You don't waste time arguing over the properties of unicorn horns if you don't think unicorns exist. "Omni" is a superlative prefix, like "est" is a superlative suffix (e.g. 'tallest', 'biggest' etc). I've argued elsewhere in this debate that the omniscience and omnipotence of God are compatible in their own terms, without having to limit the domain of God's omni properties and powers, which creates it's own problems. 'Tallest' and 'tallest in the room' mean very different things. Side: No.
Unfortunately your logic is flawed. Omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible, like 'make a square circle', or 'bake a red decade'. Things like this are examples of meaningless statements. The statement 'God create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it' is equally meaningless. Part of the definition of God, due to his omnipotence, is that there is no possible physical thing that he could not lift. If we take this as true, then by logical equivalence, part of the definition of every possible physical object is that it is liftable by God. Therefore, 'a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it' is like 'a square circle', it's just a meaningless, self-contradictory idea. P.S. I don't believe in God myself, this is just an argument about possibilities. Side: Yes.
You are spot on. The paradox works on the principle of assuming power to do everything comes with the power to do illogical and stupid things. An all knowing and all powerful being can't do that which makes no sense. Plain and simple. If he has all the power he can never do that which makes him powerless. Side: Yes.
If he cannot lift that rock, he will destroy it. And when he can destroy it, he is still omnipotent and omniscient. And you just said that IF HE CAN LIFT THE ROCK,THEN THE ROCK IS NOW UNLIFTABLE. Why would the rock be unliftable? God has already lifted it. It will just make him more omnipotent and omniscient if he can lift an unliftable rock, wouldn't he? Side: Yes.
Eileen, you are correct. No matter what these nay sayers spout out, God is still all knowing and all powerful. Jesus had said it Himself that if anyone denies Him and the Father, both will deny them on that Day of Judgement. David still succeeded as King in the Bible and he did eventually move that rock but it took alot of time. Many former atheists have also had near death experiences which led them towards seeing God and Christ appear before them, making them believe again. Atheism is already debunked ever since Jesus came to earth. Side: Yes.
Firstly, "the liftable unliftable rock" is an empty concept. A label which points to nothing. A noise with no meaning. It signifies no possible thing. The properties of 'liftable' and 'unliftable' cancel each other out, leaving an impossible rock. If God can lift it, it's not unliftable. You might as well talk about "the soiqwjndoiuqiuwdncjdwjryr rock". Secondly, God can't become 'more' omnipotent or omniscient, these are superlative qualities (like 'tallest' or 'oldest', and you cant be 'more tallest'). Not only this, but God, being eternal, cannot 'become' anything at all, though any process of change, comparison or action, being perfectly omnipotent/omniscient from the very moment it exists (i.e. since forever). Side: No.
Nope. They logically contradict one another. If god is all-knowing, or knows the future and the past (i.e. is has a "plan for everybody"), then if he cannot change the future or the past, as it is set. Thus he can't be omnipotent. If he does change the flow of history, then he didn't know the future or the past, meaning he was not omniscient. Furthermore, omnipotence even contradicts itself. Can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it himself? This may sounds childish, but it holds a great truth. Side: No.
4
points
I recently read a poem that I think sums up the paradox pretty well. Can ominscient God who, Knows the future find, The ominpotence to Change his future mind? Basically if God knows everything that is and will be, this includes how he/she will use his/her omnipotence in the future. However this means one of either two things; 1. God isn't omnipotent, because he/she doesnt have the power to change his/her mind about the future that he/she already knows, or 2. God isn't omniscient, because if he/she does change his/her mind about the future it means he/she didn't know everything that would happen in the future The obvious rebuttal to this paradox is that God does have the power to change his/her mind but has never execised it. However can a power that you can't use be classified as a power at all? Side: No.
This is just another example of the 'square circle' mistake. There is no reason why an omnipotent and omniscient God would need to change His/Her/It's mind, and nothing that could cause this to happen. It's not a paradox, just another "rock so heavy He can't lift it" verbal game. Side: Yes.
3
points
Omniscience is fundamentally incompatible with free will. Someone with true free will can exercise their judgement in making choices in their life. If God is truly omniscient, then he already knows the results of those choices before they are made. Logically, this implies that there was only one possible choice to begin with - the choice God knows about. All other choices were illusory because you were for-ordained to choose the option God knew you would choose. If he does NOT know and learns as you make those choices, then he is no longer omniscient. Omnipotence is inherently contradictory because it pits creative ability against performance. If you can create anything, then you can create a puzzle no one can solve, an unliftable object, an intangible force ... and yet having no limits to your performance, you can solve that puzzle, lift that object and perceive or sense that force. The two sides of omnipotence cancel each other out in a logical conundrum. Side: No.
God gave us free will and btw, omniscience means all knowing, it's not defined as free will. All knowing means knowing all things. God created each of us and knew all the events that have occurred, is occurring right now and will occur in the future. Past, present and future. God knows it and He is all powerful because He has the power to decide and move all things according to His eternal plan. Your arguments are invalidated. Side: Yes.
It's fairly simple. Most Christians say God can do anything (omnipotence) and knows everything (omniscience). It is inherently self-contradictory for something to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If God knows everything, then he'll know what choices he'll make tomorrow. (example, he knows he's going to choose A instead of B) If God can do anything, then he can choose either A or B, meaning he could choose B even though his knowledge of the previous day said he would choose A. Therefore, if God cannot choose B because his foreknowledge told him he would choose A, then he cannot do anything or lacks omnipotence. And if God does choose B, as an all-powerful being could, then his prior knowledge that he would choose A was wrong, in which case he is not all-knowing or lacks omniscience. Side: No.
2
points
God cannot both do anything AND know everything. There is either a limit to the number of things God can do or he doesn't know all of the things he can do. If he knows all of the potential things he can do, there are a finite amount of potential things he can do. (not omnipotent) If there is no limit to the potential things he can do, he cannot know all of them. (not omniscient) Side: No.
I say no with a caveat. You can not be both omniscient and omnipotent without being omnipresent. To know all and do all, you must be all. There we go with that Trinity thing again. How can you know all without being every where? In mathematical terms, a subset is always a part of the master set. Can God be all powerful and create an immovable object? The object would be immovable for all but He who created it. Is it truly immovable, yes to all who encounter it be He who created it. Being omnipresent would mean that the rock is apart of Him. As a man, you can build a house that you yourself can not move under your own power. If you employ other methods to assist, you can then move the house. All powerful, all knowing and all present means you have all the power needed to do anything, including exceeding limitations, imagination and boundaries. Side: Consider This
No. For a god to be all powerful as well as all knowing, he would have to have knowledge of the future including his own choices. If he knows what choices he will make, then he cannot make another choice, therefore he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful and is able to choose freely regardless of the future he already knows, then he is not truly all knowing. Side: No.
|
It is possible to be 'all-knowing' and 'all-powerful' provided that what one means by these terms is that God knows all that can be known and God can do all that can be done. It is not possible for an entity to be all-powerful in the sense that the answer to every question of the form, "Can all-powerful entity do (such and such)?", is yes. It is easy to construct sentences in which saying yes leads to logical impossibilities. Since this stronger version of the notion 'all-powerful' can't exist then people should use the less strong version mentioned above. In the weaker versions of the meaning of these terms, God can be both omniscient and omnipotent. Side: Yes.
3
points
One way this can be true is if God is outside of the universe. To help you think about it, pretend that the universe is a computer simulation and that God is the nerd who's programming the simulation and watching it run. It's not hard to imagine that she has built tools that allow her to pause, save, load, rewind and fast forward the simulation. As such, she can know anything she wants about the simulation at any given stage, and she can edit any aspect of that simulation as well. That places God outside of time (since time in that simulation is just one of many variables that can be arbitrarily tweaked), and makes her all-knowing and all-powerful, as far as that simulation is concerned, which happens to be all we know. Side: Consider This
1
point
Wrong. God is all knowing and all powerful. The Bible is clear about it. God knew us before we knew Him. He created all of us and all things good. That proves He is all powerful as He had the knowledge as well as the power to do what He did. You, Daealis, have proven to be ignorant. Therefore, your arguments are invaldated. Side: Yes.
Omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible, like 'make a square circle', or 'bake a red decade'. Things like this are examples of meaningless statements. The statement 'God change his mind' is meant to be an example of something that, because of his omniscience, God cannot do, and this is meant to refute his omnipotence. However, logically speaking, the statement 'God change his mind' is as equally meaningless as the statement 'make a square circle'. Part of the definition of God, due to his omniscience, is that there is nothing that he does not know. Given this, if it is a possible item of knowledge, then God knows it. This, therefore, includes all possible counterfactuals (i.e. all 'if... then...' items of knowledge). Given this, God cannot learn anything 'new' because he already knows everything. Is this a problem for his omnipotence? No. God cannot make a perfect circle any more circle than it already is, that's simply a logical consequence the definition of a 'perfect circle'. Likewise, an omniscient God cannot learn anything new (make his knowledge more perfect), simply as a logical consequence the definition of omniscience (perfect knowledge). Given that, as argued before, omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible (because these things are meaningless), not being able to learn anything new is no refutation of omnipotence of a God that is already omniscient. If God can't learn anything new, can he change his mind? 'Changing your mind' is a cognitive process involving the manipulation of items of knowledge resulting in a certain outcome. A process, by definition, is something which involves change over time. God's knowledge state cannot change over time because from the very moment it exists it is completely perfect. As argued before, the definition of omniscience entails the possession of every possible 'if...then...' item of knowledge, including the outcomes of all possible manipulations of all possible items of knowledge - instantly! Therefore, logically, the fact that God could not 'change' his mind is no more a refutation of God's omnipotence than the fact that he cannot learn anything new, any more than him not being able to make a square circle, or a perfect circle more circular. Side: Yes.
I know this is an old comment by about 12 years but I found it the most fascinating to reply to. you say that these questions are nonsensical because it creates a logical contradiction and god can only operate in a way that is logically consistent. but wouldn't demonstrating such logical inconsistencies to be true then demonstrate this image of god as omnipotent and omniscient to be false? more over there's another flaw in your argument that seems to be overlooked and I almost missed it myself due to it being ever so subtle. but if god is omnipotent is there anything that a non-omnipotent being can do which he cannot? surely if a being of less power and control than him can achieve it he must be able to do it as well or else place omnipotence in at least some regard below the capabilities of non-omnipotence. Thus if there is something a non-omnipotent being can do which he cannot then it demonstrates that such a thing is a logical possibility and is fair game to bring up in discussion. with this in mind let me ask you this, can a human being create a device that they can no longer overpower? this should be an obvious yes we as a species know very well how to create machines that operate on their own and if we were to compete one on one with these machines in the process they're designed to complete we would come up drastically short and if we tried to stop such a machine without any safeguards already put in place to give us the ability to do so we would fail miserably. just try to outrun a Bullet Train or try to stop it on the track by force and you'll see what I'm talking about. in this regard it is fair to ask if god could create anything he no longer has power over and cannot compete with in regards to its intended purpose. if he cannot do this he lacks the ability to do something a non-omnipotent being can do, but if he can do this he then creates the logical possibility of something he cannot do which means he cannot be omnipotent either way you slice it omnipotence itself is a logically impossible concept at least in regards to a god as traditionally described by judeo christian belief. as for omniscience and changing the mind well that can also be applied to the omnipotence paradox because this would then also be something a non-omniscient being could do which he would not be able to do while retaining his omniscience and thus would force a conflict between omnipotence and omniscience, but furthermore we can lay this conflict out more directly by asking if god knows what he will do before he does it, if god is omniscient he will know all he will do before he does it which will mean god doesn't have the ability to change how he will act, he will not have control over what he will do because it is already determined according to his knowledge, thus if god cannot control his own will he lacks omnipotence and is more of an observer and enactor of what is already determined, if god can control his own action however he cannot predict what he will do next and so cannot have any certainty of knowledge meaning he is not omniscient. you'd need to sacrifice one or the other or result in a contradiction. lastly there is another issue which affects omniscience and its one that plagues epistemology as a whole and its the paradox of knowledge itself. many people dismiss the skeptic who questions such core foundations as to if knowledge is even attainable but they do so at their own peril just to remain comfortable with their system of belief. literally any system of belief or epistemology you choose to question will eventually result in reasoning which is circular and self referential which is a major issue, (some examples of this include "the halting problem", "Godel's Incompleteness theorems", and "issues within Set Theory"). building off of similar issues to those that arise from set theory allow me to ask you if it is possible to know that you do not lack knowledge on something. I imagine you would say that it is not possible to know that you do not lack knowledge of something because by vary nature of this issue if there is knowledge you lack it is knowledge you do not have. now you might respond by saying that we can know that we lack knowledge on something even if we don't know what that knowledge is, but this doesn't avoid the dilemma at hand, because even if you know you lack knowledge you cannot know that there isn't knowledge which you are unaware that you lack because you are by definition unaware of it. therefore even an omniscient god cannot know that they do not lack knowledge or in other words an omniscient god cannot then know that it is omniscient. but wait you're probably going to argue that knowing that there's nothing you don't know is a logical impossibility, and I would agree with you but that's where the second layer of this paradox comes into play. you see while knowing there's nothing unknown to you is a logical impossibility having a truth that is true outside of your knowing is not logically impossible only knowing that truth when you don't know it is impossible. now if you were to learn this hypothetical truth that you were not aware of before there is a possibility that the truth is so significant that it disproves everything you previously believed true, and if this is possible you cannot claim to know anything with 100 percent certainty because there's always a chance that you could be wrong and the likelihood of that happening might just be something you can never know because it resides outside of your knowing. with this in mind the same can be applied to an omniscient god that if he cannot do the logically impossible task of knowing that he is omniscient then he cannot claim to have any knowledge with 100 percent certainty because there may always be something outside of his knowing and awareness which causes him to be incorrect in his belief. so in short no omniscience and omnipotence both are logical impossibilities and instead of criticizing the logical impossibility of the arguments raised against these qualities you should recognize that the arguments are intentionally drawing attention to these logical impossibilities to show you that these traits are not logically possible Side: No.
2
points
I applaud you for posting, but i do not think you made your point well enough to combat my argument. A god cannot be all powerful and all knowing, because they inherently contradict each other. Nor can he be simply all powerful as stated in my previous argument. Nor all knowing with any ability to act. This is just more evidence to point out god is in our minds not reality, we created him not the other way around. Side: No.
There is no evidence of what you're saying is true. In fact, being all knowledgeable is contribution to being all powerful. God knows all and sees all. He created all things and it was good. Without being all knowledgeable, He would not be all powerful. The two are in fact not mutually exclusive and God is real. He lives. Just as His Son Jesus Christ lived and walked this earth, saving us from the sins of the world. Side: Yes.
Exactly. Without knowledge, how can God be all powerful? In the beginning, He knew how to create all things; the oceans, the lands, the mountains, the forests and then the living creatures, including us in all 7 Days. I believe that all the nay sayers here do not understand what omniscient means. Omnipotent means all powerful. Omniscient means all knowledgeable and knowledge is a form of power. Without knowledge, even we won't know what to do at times which is true. That is the whole point of education! God knows and sees all. He is all powerful and just. His laws are morally absolute. One of these sacred laws include the bonds of marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman only. Side: Yes.
1
point
The power is in the possession. For the sake of argument let say God is real, and that you died and ascended to heaven to meet him, you can't tell me you wouldn't be completely intimidated just being in his presence? He wouldn't even have to do anything, he could just sit there and stare you into holy submission. Side: Yes.
Yes, the two are connected. If God wasn't all knowing, how can He be all powerful? He created everything, every one of us and all the details of this world plus the universe. If He wasn't all knowledgeable, He wouldn't have been able to know how to. He wouldn't know each of us before we ever knew Him. It was God who taught Adam how to name all the animals etc before Adam came up with the label 'woman' for Eve. Side: Yes.
You're holding God to your own universal laws and limitations which are the only one's your mind can conceive. You don't know that God can't "bake a red, square, circle decade." You don't know that God's world doesn't allow for every possibility, you just know that your humanity doesn't. It's both gross and beautiful that your ego allows you to think that you are the most omniscient thing possible and that the possibilities you know or can know are THE possibilities. Meanwhile, you can't conceive that something can exist outside the realm of your own logic. Catch 22? Side: Yes.
If this is the stance you take and god is so far beyond our understanding how can you claim to know that such a god exists or anything else about that god for that matter? do you not attribute certain phenomena to god but deny others? take for example good and evil. if someone were to say "god is evil because he wants children to die and suffer because he gives them cancer and lets them be kidnapped and trafficked" how would you possibly refute this? they could use the same argument that "you just don't understand god's motives and nature because you are only human and any disagreement you have with god on that front is just your ego making you think you know better than god as to what he wants". if you want to claim the bible is your resource then they could easily say that "the bible was written by people just as clueless about god's true nature as you are". and you'd likely claim the same of that person and it'd just be your word against theirs if you truly take such a position that god is beyond understanding then no meaningful conversation about the characteristics of god can be had, be they good traits or bad. Side: No.
God is all powerful and all knowing. He didn't create us from nothing nor did someone create Him out of nowhere. God exists outside of time. Jesus even said it, where He is from, the Kingdom of God is beyond our world and we are not allowed to go there unless we believe in Jesus Christ, our Messiah & Savior, worship God the Father and obey His Commandments which are eternally absolute. This includes the bonds of marriage between a BIOLOGICAL MAN aka the Husband and a BIOLOGICAL WOMAN aka the Wife which are NOT "Until death do us part". Families are eternal. Omnipotent means all powerful. You must know the definition of both words. Omniscient means all knowledgeable. Don't mix God the Father with Jesus though. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was given power & authority by God the Father in Heaven to do His divine will. Both are not the same personage. Yes someone lied. The roman catholics have lied for generations about God's nature. The popes throughout history have claimed they were God or Christ multiple times which has fulfilled the prophesies foretold by Jesus Christ about false christs and false prophets rising up to deceive many, while looking very fancy to the eyes of man. Mankind overall are not all knowing nor omnipotent without God's guidance through the Holy Ghost. We were created in God's image and we have the potential to become like Him and like His Son Jesus Christ, eventually to live eternally with both of them along with all the celestial beings in the next life. However, we are not God nor Jesus. We are each a different individual and imperfect. That is what this life is all about. This life is all about trials, tests and constant ups & downs. God needs us to endure to the end by following His Commandments in absolute obedience. Roman Catholics these days and other denominations that have grown away from the gospel; not counting the Latter-day Saints who have and always will follow the Bible, the Book of Mormon, D&C plus the Pearl of Great Price within the Restored Gospel. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is just everything re-translated and recompiled. The Pearl of Great Price contains the Books of Moses & Abraham. Now, why have the mainstream Christians grown away? Because the main streamers aka the Trinitarian Christians believe that God has three forms in one being, they have twisted scriptures to their cherry picking methods as well as allowing sin to go outta control. I am talking about the false "progressive" Christians. Again, this already proves that what Jesus had said about many claiming to believe yet their actions prove otherwise to be true. It has come to pass. Trinitarian beliefs are pagan okay? Back then, if you were a believer and you went up to a catholic priest, telling him that God is all knowing and all powerful while a priest like him is not, you would be burnt at the stake for "heresy". No pope is all knowing nor all powerful. God is and Jesus is only powerful because God the Father granted Him power and authority to speak for Him. God knows each and every one of us individually, just as Jesus does. Anyone who denies God the Father, denies Jesus too. Anyone who denies Jesus, denies God the Father and then, well, both will deny that individual. God's power is shown through many ways. This includes weather, circumstances and many miracles etc. Back then, if a baby died or was taken away from his/her mother by the nuns, they claimed it was "God's will". Was it though? No. Why? Because they prevented the baby from having his or her own choice in life. Most often, those babies were taken away to "grow up spiritually in the light of Christ" but they were hardly loved by the nuns and monks. Their life was basically chosen for them. Yet God gave us free will. He's all powerful & all knowing. All His Laws, actions & thoughts are absolute and eternally divine. God gave the Prophet, Moses the 10 Commandments aka the Law of Moses, He knew back from Genesis that Adam & Eve would eat the forbidden fruit. God also knew that there would always be rebellion against Him. For example, there was a small group who questioned Moses amongst his followers. They turned away from God and the Commandments, worshiping a golden calf statue, began committing murder, adultery, stole from each other and children became disobedient too. One thing led to another. Why did He do nothing about it? Because it was part of everything and because He knew one day, humans will learn as we are His greatest creation above all the animals and creepy crawly creatures of earth. Even if He had intervened...what then would Adam & Eve learn? Adam & Eve were meant to make that mistake in order for all of us to learn from it and to never do it, nor to heed the words of the Devil aka the talking serpent Satan aka the Adversary. The point was simple. If they ate from the fruit, they would die and it happened. God knew this and had warned both Adam and Eve. He was hoping they'd listen but also knew they were vulnerable. Of course, Adam & Eve knew it was wrong, but remember, it was the serpent's fault and that's why he was punished the worst while Adam & Eve were innocent for being deceived. Of course, Adam didn't do it first, the serpent took advantage of the innocent Eve, convincing her that she could be more smarter than God. She was reluctant and she was right to be. Yet the devil always has something up his sleeve, something we just can't refuse at times. That is how Eve was tricked and then Adam was too without knowing it was the snake until after. Adam is not to blame for blaming Eve nor is it Eve's fault. Adam was unintentionally misled by Eve who was deceived by the talking snake. Adam thought Eve was disobeying God on purpose and she should've been more tactical to step on the snake just as Adam should've convinced Eve even more to not listen to the serpent. Adam certainly tried but believed Eve was correct..... Eve was being honest about it being the snake's idea in the first place as Eve never thought about disobeying God and nor did Adam. In fact, before the serpent's intervention, Adam and Eve were quite the happy couple in the Garden of Eden. When Adam found out, he knew, both of them were screwed because they had become part of something evil, unintentionally. They tried to explain to God about it and He knew, He warned them and yet they still disobeyed which eventually taught them about seeing the truth of the devil's evil and the consequences of going against God. Modern feminists aka feminazis aka the third wave of feminists claim it is sexist for Adam to have blamed Eve, yet Adam didn't even know that the serpent had convinced Eve until he was told about it and was shown the truth. They claim that the Bible and God are sexist just because God commanded women to follow their husbands and to submit to them. Those hypocrites are as misguided as Eve was except worse. Much much worse. At least Eve was sorry. But I tell you, feminazis are hateful of man. Yet God created the first woman from the first man's rib. Therefore, feminazis are invalidated and will be judged accordingly as God wills. I will not assume what His decision will be. I just know all of us will face God and Jesus on that Day of Judgement. God created all things and had said it is good. It was solely the serpent's fault and with Adam & Eve's actions, consequences had to happen as God had warned. Imagine the scene okay? There are tons of sources out there depicting the story of Adam & Eve. Picture God the Father, Adam, Eve & ofc the serpent. The three of them are being questioned by God Himself which is what happened in the Garden after the fruit was eaten. God asked, "What has happened? Have you eaten from the fruit when I said not to?". Now obviously, Adam & Eve didn't have much to say except sort of point fingers at each other and the serpent was the most guilty. God knew the three of them are involved with two being more innocent than one. The serpent was the first to be punished. God took responsibility when the three of them could not, especially the serpent. Next was Adam & Eve. Adam had to suffer hard labor, and Eve had to go through painful child labor and both have to suffer death. Why would God go against His own word right? Exactly. God is just. We are not guilty of Adam & Eve's fatal mistake, but it affects us because their transgressions caused the consequences; hard labor of men & the child labor of women. We are each individually responsible for our own sins. God was and still is all knowing, therefore, in that aspect. If He had intervened, there would be no learning lesson. Even Satan the talking serpent was punished, forever to slither instead of walking on it's legs and having no backbone as well as being vulnerable to being stepped on with the advantage of biting a human's ankle and heel. Without being all knowledgeable and all powerful, God would not have created the universe and every one of us here today who are debating about this! Therefore, He is all knowledgeable and all powerful, as He knew us before we ever knew Him. Same with Jesus. He also knew us before we ever knew Him. God created science including biology, astronomy, anatomy, mathematics etc etc etc. He is our intelligent Creator besides being our loving Heavenly Father. Another thing, knowledge is a form of power. God has knowledge of all things, He is eternally the Ol'Wise one and Jesus Christ is a witness to this as He was sent by the Father in Heaven. He cannot do anything except through the Father nor does Jesus know anything, except through the Father in Heaven. This means, whatever the Father in Heaven wants Jesus to know, Jesus will know. Whatever the Father tells Jesus to tell us, is exactly what we will receive. For man cannot go to the Father, except through Jesus Himself who is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. Knowledge and power are therefore given by God who is all powerful & all knowledgeable. Omnipotency and Omniscience are not without one another, it's never mutually exclusive. If God was not all powerful, how could He be all knowing too? The two work together. It's just like ingredients for a special recipe. You can't make it without a missing ingredient. Therefore, everybody who has said no are either A. Ignorant, B. Disobedient rebels who worship the devil, C. Are still learning about God and is about to be enlightened by God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost and D. Both A and B. Looking back in the Book of Genesis, God taught Adam how to name all the animals, plants, trees etc. If He wasn't all knowing, HOW would Adam have learnt from God? Exactly. God finally created Eve and Adam called her a woman which is exactly what she was. We have women today and men today still. God indeed created two genders; male and female. God did not create six other genders etc etc etc. Mankind did and the deformed snowflakes claim it was God who did so but that's a lie. The snowflakes today who are a pitiful group of ignorant fools obviously wanted to copy cat God's way of creating stuff. But it isn't that simple as in the Book of Isaiah, God's thoughts are higher than our own. He allows men to each choose a woman to be his wife, as He allows each woman to choose a man to be her husband. However, He has higher purposes for us while we may think, "Ah, we must go shopping, to the doctor's etc etc" (Basically human matters vs spiritual matters). No, God does not control our lives, He guides us, He has us work for His purposes such as worship, reading scriptures and at times, serving others etc etc etc. Snowflakes who claim there are more than 2 genders are invalidated 100% immediately by the truth and only the truth. I have spoken absolute objective truths and anyone who attempts to argue otherwise will be debunked. God's purpose for creating a man and a woman is for the sole reason to have families so that we will not end up alone in this life nor in the next. Side: Yes.
0
points
He is both. Omniscient and omnipotent are part of the same equation. You seem to be struggling to understand that being both omniscient and omnipotent is logically impossible. If God knows how to make a boulder he can't lift then he can't be omnipotent, and if he doesn't know how to make a boulder he can't lift then he can't be omniscient. Hence, your argument is invalidated and you are destined to die on a hill. Side: No.
Your arguments are invalidated. No, in fact, it is you who is struggling to grasp the meaning of both terms and you clearly are in-denial. I've dealt with self destructive idiots like you before and therefore, you are ineffective with your verbal insults. I will say, you sound pathetic and immature. You have lost this argument and you make zero sense. Cry me a river and get over it. Do you not know how to read? Clearly. Omniscience means all knowledgeable aka all knowing. Omnipotent means all powerful. God is indeed both. You are a troll and you are clearly an ignorant hypocrite who gets offended by the truth and you only spew pure bs. This is a sign of delusional syndrome from yourself. You've wrecked yourself and you are fighting an uphill battle you've begun. You cannot win. God prevails. This bash will silence you if you continue. Do it at your own peril. Side: Yes.
Here is a link: Read it. If you don't read but insult, you have lost this debate. This is only part 1 of the verses. There are also verses on how God is all knowing as well. Side: Yes.
Read all the verses and if you do anything such as insult and troll, you've lost the argument. All nay sayers are already invalidated for trolling around. I have spoken absolute objective truths. Side: Yes.
More evidence to prove God is all knowing and all powerful; Holy Scripture. Hypocrites who point fingers at me will be denounced immediately without mercy and without hesitance. His “understanding is inscrutable (unsearchable)” and “infinite” (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 148:5). The psalmist wrote of God's infinite knowledge of each individual man and woman who has ever lived, “Such knowledge is too high for me; it is too high, I cannot attain it” (Psalm 139:6) Side: Yes.
It is amusing to me that the simple answer to this so easily evades all the 'thinkers' who want to weigh in and toss rocks. Perhaps those who wish to argue this should first remind themselves what the root word 'omni' means..... it means 'all', which in turn specifically does not rule out states of ignorance or refusal of choice or pretty much any other appearance of contradiction. If something/someone is omniscient and omnipotent, there are a number of things they may choose to do, among which is NOT TO CHOOSE. If something/someone is omniscient and omnipotent, there are a number of things they may be, among which is IGNORANT OF SOMETHING. Perhaps no one lied. Perhaps all choices and all paths and all outcomes exist in their own dimension and the only one you know about is the one you experience... and even then, you only know it in the moment OF the experience, after that, you BELIEVE/HAVE FAITH that you know it. Perhaps the difference between between omniscience and omnipotence and being human is simply ignorance and an inability to truly comprehend just what being omniscient and omnipotent really means. Side: Yes.
3
points
Just because you are part of the species that made a thing doesn't mean you know how to use it or understand it and its logical ramifications.... obviously. If omniscient then electing to be unknowing is possible. If omnipotent then electing to be without power is possible. Humans have called everything from weather to solar phenomenon evidence of 'gods', but that wasn't the question, was it? I suggest Aristotle for your reading list. Particularly to understand the nature of syllogism and how it applies here. Side: Yes.
Spot on. Humans trying to understand what God is fail simply because they try to describe him in terms that humans are constrained by. Things like time, space, limit and ignorance. If God is there he isn't constrained by such things. So he can be every where at the same time and know everything there is to know, and because he is all knowing he won't do that which makes no sense for him to do. In short he would be the ultimate expression of free will. He would only do that which he decides, which would be based on perfect reason and perfect logic. Side: Yes.
So for example then, Cienna, when Adam & Eve were told by God not to eat from the fruit, God ALREADY KNEW it would kill them. The talking serpent knew this as well but regardless, deceived Eve and then Adam got misled by Eve. At the end of that tale, Adam and Eve knew it wasn't their fault 100%, it was the serpent's. God was honest to both of them, saying that, "You may eat any fruit from any tree in my Garden, but one. Lest if you eat from the forbidden fruit from that tree, you will die." God knew this. He cared enough to tell Adam and Eve. They both knew and tried to resist the serpent's lies but made the mistake. No one lied in this situation EXCEPT the talking serpent! In this debate though, the only liars are those who think omniscient and omnipotent can be without one another when this is not true. Both are not mutually exclusive indeed. Side: Yes.
|
