God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful

[Ygrene Imref]

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

Why not? Just because infinity is asymptotic doesn't mean it isn't tangent to some other "infinite" characteristic at one, or many points. Even, they may have the same/similar domains.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. This means that you would know exactly what you are going to do way before you do it, and you know what other people are going to do. You cannot change what you or they are going to do otherwise you would not be all knowing since you would have got it wrong.

You can change anything, but the infinite would have already generated all possible outcomes that would occur if any perturbation is made to the system. In QM, it is usually said that the distribution of probabilities of respective wavefunction collapses when a state is observed, but there is no uncertainty principle with omniscience. So, you can actually measure, for example, the position of an event, and it's evolution (change) with perfect accuracy and precision. Well you cant, and neither can I. But, I don't see a paradox with infinity being able to emcompass everything.

Therefore to be all knowing, you can't be all powerful. If you were all powerful, you would be able to change your mind, meaning that you were wrong, and so you are not all knowing.

I would argue that if you are all knowing, you are (or have the potential to be) all poweful, and everywhere at once. If you know everything, you can manipulate natural laws in a way that seems like magic to finite entities. This is sometimes reflected in art (comics) where an unpowered entity with genius level intellect is able to take on god-like opponents.


I do see the paradox you bring up, however. And, it is a paradox. But, the remedy for this paradox is to know that infinity is NOT a number in mathematics; it is a generator. So, it is possible that "omni" underestimated by finite creatures. We have no idea how to perceive the generator of infinity, let alone the different infinity generatora, where they are touching/tangent, where they intersect, etc. And, generators have a rate, so God doesn't just stay at infinity; He generates infinity infinitely at an infinite infinity rate. It is ridiculous to us because it is categorically outside of our entire space.

 

[RDKirk]

Omniscience is not incompatible with omnipotence unless one is making a presumption from his own limited viewpoint of how such a being ought to act.

 

[RDKirk]

You can change anything, but the infinite would have already generated all possible outcomes that would occur if any perturbation is made to the system.

Infinity has been defined by one author as "The time it takes for all possibilities, no matter how remote, to occur."

I would argue that if you are all knowing, you are (or have the potential to be) all powerful, and everywhere at once. If you know everything, you can manipulate natural laws in a way that seems like magic to finite entities. This is sometimes reflected in art (comics) where an unpowered entity with genius level intellect is able to take on god-like opponents.

I would argue that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are necessarily identical states.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Infinity has been defined by one author as "The time it takes for all possibilities, no matter how remote, to occur."



I would argue that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are necessarily identical states.

Yes, mathematically, there is a point where if you reach omnipresence, you are categorically omniscient - which implies you are categorically omnipotent. This works for all permutations.

A real paradox (perhaps one we can understand) would be an entity that is omnipotent, but not omniscient or omnipresent.

Like, the classic "can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift?" paradox - perhaps that is why it is so popular.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fear of uncertainty hits us all when we least expect it.
Death usually brings out the worst in us especially if it's prolonged - it makes sense confliction would be present.

That depends on the circumstances, and would seem to apply to anyone - so what makes you single out atheists as conflicted?

 

[Saint Beloved]

***
The original content of this message has been removed by the user as posts cannot be deleted. The original content of this message may still be visible if quoted by another CF member.
***

 

[lesliedellow]

Really must try harder.

There are all sorts of things God can't do, such as cease to exist, but omnipotent is still an appropriate label for a God who can bring about whatever he wills, and through a mere act of his will.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I agree. I think God is all knowing but not all powerful.

Well, it does say in the Bible at one point that God was with the Israelites in a battle but they couldn't defeat the opposing army because the opposing army had iron chariots.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I think he was referring to the moment when one realizes that one is about to die or in the dying stages of an illness during which time one has time to ruminate about the meaning of life and what lies ahead. To an atheist it might seem as if he is about to descend into a dark void...

I suspect that's more a believer's idea of what an atheist might think. I always imagined it as going into a dreamless sleep, or like before you were born - there can't be a 'dark void', or anything, if you're not there to experience it.

Of the few deaths I have personal knowledge of, the elderly were mostly 'ready to go' - sufficiently tired or unwell to be sanguine about it, or no longer mentally competent, or unconscious. The younger ones were rather sudden, so they didn't have time to ponder it. But it seems to me that if you're dying and don't want to go, you'd naturally want to fight to stay alive.

It seems reasonable to fear the pain and/or loss of faculties during dying, and to fear not being able to continue living.

I'm just curious to know what atheists in particular are supposed to be conflicted about with death.

 

[Radrook]

I suspect that's more a believer's idea of what an atheist might think. I always imagined it as going into a dreamless sleep, or like before you were born - there can't be a 'dark void', or anything, if you're not there to experience it.

Of the few deaths I have personal knowledge of, the elderly were mostly 'ready to go' - sufficiently tired or unwell to be sanguine about it, or no longer mentally competent, or unconscious. The younger ones were rather sudden, so they didn't have time to ponder it. But it seems to me that if you're dying and don't want to go, you'd naturally want to fight to stay alive.

It seems reasonable to fear the pain and/or loss of faculties during dying, and to fear not being able to continue living.

I'm just curious to know what atheists in particular are supposed to be conflicted about with death.

Jesus did compared death to sleep because he wanted to emphasize the hope of awakening during the resurrection and not because it is identical to sleep. After all, to be identical to sleep dreams would need to be experienced due to brain activity during REM.
36 Bible verses about Sleep, And Death

Carl Sagan, whom I will assume was an atheist based on his views of our universe, approached his own death due to illness in a very calm philosophical manner.

Also I agree that atheist or not, most people prefer death to pain and illness and old age and calmly face it if not gladly receive it sometimes. In fact, like Jaqueline Kennedy and those who availed themselves of the services of Dr. Kevorkian, some might even request it.

However, I think it is safe to assume that those who truly believe 100% that death is merely a transition into another yet still conscious, vastly superior existence have a certain emotional advantage over those who feel it is a permanent descent into the maw of eternal oblivion since the latter is far preferable to the former.


BTW
I mentioned a black void prior to being born because that is the only thing I can envision, a total lack of the senses, nothingness.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I used atheists as an example because the OP is an atheist.

OK, so when you said 'atheists', you could have been referring to anyone or everyone. So what do you think the conflict people have is?

 

[Waggles]

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

You come across as a cat chasing its tail.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

However, I think it is safe to assume that those who truly believe 100% that death is merely a transition into another yet still conscious, vastly superior existence have a certain emotional advantage over those who feel it is a permanent descent into the maw of eternal oblivion since the latter is far preferable to the former.

Very probably, but I doubt many atheists would see it as 'a permanent descent into the maw of eternal oblivion' - why use such emotive language about simple non-existence? I think that says more about a believer's view than an atheist's. As Mark Twain said, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

As to whether the idea of an eternity of continued existence would be preferable, most atheists I know who've talked about it think it would eventually become dreadful - rather as Marvin the paranoid android said in The Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy, "The first ten million years were the worst, and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline."

BTW
I mentioned a black void prior to being born because that is the only thing I can envision, a total lack of the senses, nothingness.

I don't recall a black void, or anything; try not to envision anything

 

[Resha Caner]

"God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful"

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

Well, given that it seems you're admitting God's existence, I'm willing to concede this one little point to you.

 

[Radrook]

Very probably, but I doubt many atheists would see it as 'a permanent descent into the maw of eternal oblivion' - why use such emotive language about simple non-existence? I think that says more about a believer's view than an atheist's. As Mark Twain said, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

As to whether the idea of an eternity of continued existence would be preferable, most atheists I know who've talked about it think it would eventually become dreadful - rather as Marvin the paranoid android said in The Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy, "The first ten million years were the worst, and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline."

I don't recall a black void, or anything; try not to envision anything

I use emotive language because that is the way I see such a hopeless event. I describe nonexistence prior to birth as a black void because that's the only thing which to me comes close to describing it and certainly not because I recall it.

Yes, I have heard atheists say that they dread eternal life because it would be unbearable for many a diverse reason.

I have also encountered people who believe in God saying that they dread eternal life because they can't imagine themselves either petting tiger or sitting on a cloud playing a harp and singing psalms for all eternity.

But those opinions I have found to be based on certain hasty assumptions about the quality of life that they expect to live which doesn't harmonize with what is promised in the Bible.

 

[Nithavela]

The only thing that this thread proves is that you are *not* all knowing and *not* all powerful.

I doubt you can even fathom the mind of Vincent Van Gogh, most of us Couldn't, and that guy's IQ is only 220, barely all-knowing.

Well, I still have both ears.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I agree. I think God is all knowing but not all powerful.

If God is all knowing how do you explain the conversation in Genesis 3:9-11?

 

[zippy2006]

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. This means that you would know exactly what you are going to do way before you do it, and you know what other people are going to do. You cannot change what you or they are going to do otherwise you would not be all knowing since you would have got it wrong. Therefore to be all knowing, you can't be all powerful. If you were all powerful, you would be able to change your mind, meaning that you were wrong, and so you are not all knowing.

That's an interesting argument. The problem is that God is eternal and does not exist in time. He created time along with everything else. Therefore an argument which requires God to have time-based knowledge of his own actions fails.

Probably belongs in philosophy?

It does. If only we had a philosophy forum!

 

[Bluerose31]

If God is all knowing how do you explain the conversation in Genesis 3:9-11?

I'm not sure.

 

[RDKirk]

If God is all knowing how do you explain the conversation in Genesis 3:9-11?

You're talking about an account from a Bronze Age reporter. They hadn't even yet discovered the color blue--how accurate of an account of events beyond their ken can you expect?