above logic???

[Grega]

Missing the definition.

We know Caesar didn't put Seneca to death. Our "science" of this fact is simply assured.

The only question now is whether Caesar were able.

I assert Caesar was completely able, and thus potent to kill Seneca.

So, we are scient of the fact that Caesar did not kill Seneca. And yet we also know Caesar was entirely potent to kill Seneca, and yet he did not.

What's more, we can conclude that Caesar was in his right mind, and could afterward reflect on the fact that he spared Seneca's life. Caesar himself was scient of not killing Seneca, but Caesar was potent to kill Seneca, and yet he did not.

Apples and oranges then. your omnipotent God knows the future, it's future, your analogy asks me to look at the past and it doesn't mean a jot to the argument of whether a god who knows X for all times can potentially do Y

 

[heymikey80]

Apples and oranges then. your omnipotent God knows the future, it's future, your analogy asks me to look at the past and it doesn't mean a jot to the argument of whether a god who knows X for all times can potentially do Y

Yes, actually it does. The treatment of the words clearly allows you to state the potency of Caesar to kill Seneca, even though he never would.

That demonstrates the point, that knowing that Caesar would never kill Seneca, does not change Caesar's potence to kill Seneca.

And therefore, the knowledge (science) that God would never take an action, does not change God's potence to take action.

Applied distributively to all knowledge and all actions: omniscience about God's not taking an action does not change God's omnipotence to take action.

 

[Grega]

Yes, actually it does. The treatment of the words clearly allows you to state the potency of Caesar to kill Seneca, even though he never would.

That demonstrates the point, that knowing that Caesar would never kill Seneca, does not change Caesar's potence to kill Seneca.

And therefore, the knowledge (science) that God would never take an action, does not change God's potence to take action.

Applied distributively to all knowledge and all actions: omniscience about God's not taking an action does not change God's omnipotence to take action.

Yes, actually it does. The treatment of the words clearly allows you to state the potency of Caesar to kill Seneca, even though he never would.
Wrong...your anology fails to capture all the important details...read my last post, slowly.

That demonstrates the point, that knowing that Caesar would never kill Seneca, does not change Caesar's potence to kill Seneca.
It demonstrates nothing of importance

And therefore, the knowledge (science) that God would never take an action, does not change God's potence to take action.

Applied distributively to all knowledge and all actions: omniscience about God's not taking an action does not change God's omnipotence to take action.
Wrong. Why this is wrong has been explained more times than I wish to count. 'Your' God can obviously make square circles and rocks it can't lift.
Thankyou for your participation in this thread. I will respond to you no further.

 

[heymikey80]

Yes, actually it does. The treatment of the words clearly allows you to state the potency of Caesar to kill Seneca, even though he never would.
Wrong...your anology fails to capture all the important details...read my last post, slowly.

That demonstrates the point, that knowing that Caesar would never kill Seneca, does not change Caesar's potence to kill Seneca.
It demonstrates nothing of importance

And therefore, the knowledge (science) that God would never take an action, does not change God's potence to take action.

Applied distributively to all knowledge and all actions: omniscience about God's not taking an action does not change God's omnipotence to take action.
Wrong. Why this is wrong has been explained more times than I wish to count. 'Your' God can obviously make square circles and rocks it can't lift.
Thankyou for your participation in this thread. I will respond to you no further.

I asked for an excluded middle. You gave none, simply tried to expand the argument. Past or future -- why the distinction? The past can't be changed, so I don't see the distinction, if God is omniscient about the future.

If there's nothing substantial in the argument -- if it's just words -- then it's based on an assumption in the words that doesn't hold for logic.

And yes, God can go beyond assumptions. If you've defined the word to mean something it doesn't, then clearly God isn't going to line up with that meaning.

 

[Grega]

I asked for an excluded middle. You gave none, simply tried to expand the argument. Past or future -- why the distinction? The past can't be changed, so I don't see the distinction, if God is omniscient about the future.

If there's nothing substantial in the argument -- if it's just words -- then it's based on an assumption in the words that doesn't hold for logic.

And yes, God can go beyond assumptions. If you've defined the word to mean something it doesn't, then clearly God isn't going to line up with that meaning.

Meh!...it seems when I said I wouldn't respond, I was lying

I asked for an excluded middle. You gave none, simply tried to expand the argument. Past or future -- why the distinction? The past can't be changed, so I don't see the distinction, if God is omniscient about the future.
Excluded middle??? what excluded middle? X is/is not Omniscient is a binary statement. Either an entity knows absolutely everything, at all times in the past, present, or future and that this knowledge is absolutely cast-iron infallible/unchanging...or it isn't!. No middle ground

If there's nothing substantial in the argument -- if it's just words -- then it's based on an assumption in the words that doesn't hold for logic.
...

And yes, God can go beyond assumptions. If you've defined the word to mean something it doesn't, then clearly God isn't going to line up with that meaning
I have done no such thing. I take the words you use, take them literally, and derive logically inconsistent conclusions. You then respond with false scenarios/analogies and wild goose chases to correct you.


That person P did something X in the past means P has no potential to do Y. What he 'had' the potential to do is irrelevent since the act is done. If P is absolutely certain to do X in the future then for all intents and purposes, X has been done and we merely wait for the timeline to catch up. P has no potential to do otherwise.