God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful

[Humble me Lord]

God knew exactly where Adam was and what he had done.

Firstly, by asking, “Adam, where art thou?,” the LORD was prompting thoughts in Adam’s mind. Upon hearing God’s voice, Adam immediately thought, “I should be fellowshipping with Him. I should be right by His side, but look at me, fearful and hiding amongst the trees! My relationship with Him is severed!”

Secondly, nothing is hidden from God’s sight: God in His omniscience knew exactly where Adam was hiding and why he was hiding: “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3). By asking, “Adam, where art thou?,” the LORD is bringing Adam to the place of accountability. Adam is forced to confess that he is hiding from God because he has blatantly disobeyed God’s commandment: he has eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so as any sinner does, he hides from the holy God of creation.

 

[Radrook]

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.

Couldn't a being be mindlessly omnipresent?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God knew exactly where Adam was and what he had done.

Firstly, by asking, “Adam, where art thou?,” the LORD was prompting thoughts in Adam’s mind. Upon hearing God’s voice, Adam immediately thought, “I should be fellowshipping with Him. I should be right by His side, but look at me, fearful and hiding amongst the trees! My relationship with Him is severed!”

Secondly, nothing is hidden from God’s sight: God in His omniscience knew exactly where Adam was hiding and why he was hiding: “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3). By asking, “Adam, where art thou?,” the LORD is bringing Adam to the place of accountability. Adam is forced to confess that he is hiding from God because he has blatantly disobeyed God’s commandment: he has eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so as any sinner does, he hides from the holy God of creation.

It wasn't really meant as a serious question. But if what you say is right, then you have a whole lot of accountability on God's part for the fallen state of man - God knew Eve would be tempted, that Adam would do as Eve suggested and that sin would enter the world, yet he chose not to intervene. Therefore, sin entered the world because God chose it to. Did you really think through your response and are you sure you want to go there? That's not a question to tackle in this thread so let's just move on.

 

[miknik5]

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.

All knowing
All powerful

Yet


GRACE

 

[miknik5]

It wasn't really meant as a serious question. But if what you say is right, then you have a whole lot of accountability on God's part for the fallen state of man - God knew Eve would be tempted, that Adam would do as Eve suggested and that sin would enter the world, yet he chose not to intervene. Therefore, sin entered the world because God chose it to. Did you really think through your response and are you sure you want to go there? That's not a question to tackle in this thread so let's just move on.

Yes
GOD foreknew
Adam/mankind/our fall

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Couldn't a being be mindlessly omnipresent?

Maybe.

Though, I dont believe so. A being could be nearly omnipotent, and mindless, but then their potency would retard as their chaos (mindless) increases.

You would need to be completely "in tact, intellectually" (omniscience) to fully operate omnipotence, and therefore onmipresence.

 

[Grandpa2390]

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.

Well God is most certainly omnipotent. (Revelation 19:6) The Bible says so. And he is certainly capable of changing his mind. The Bible provides plenty of examples.
Whether or not he is omniscient is really what you are debating. And I believe you are redefining omnipotence to suit your agenda.


Kind of like that infamous question that asks whether God is powerful enough to create a rock that he is not powerful enough to lift.
You are assigning descriptions and requirements to Omnipotence that may not necessarily belong. and no matter how powerful and free a being is, he cannot defy his own nature.

 

[Grandpa2390]

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

@Far Side Of the Moon
Revelation 19:6
God is Omnipotent.

 

[Strathos]

You're assuming there is only one possible future. Why can't it be that there are infinite possible futures, and God knows all of them?

 

[Kyx]

"God cannot 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.

I admit that a god is possible. I don't not believe in God. It's the fact that all the evidence seems to come from eye-witnesses and bronze age writers. It is evident that the bible was written by man, and not by God. Maybe there is a God, but until I see the evidence, I shall remain atheist (I used to be Christian but became atheist around 10-12 years old).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Quite; as I suggested, a believer's view rather than an atheist's.

...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.

Nevertheless, whether you feel their reasons are justified or not, those who view eternal life that way will not see it as an attractive alternative.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Couldn't a being be mindlessly omnipresent?

It's always seemed to me that omnipresence implies pantheism or panentheism...

 

[RDKirk]

It wasn't really meant as a serious question. But if what you say is right, then you have a whole lot of accountability on God's part for the fallen state of man - God knew Eve would be tempted, that Adam would do as Eve suggested and that sin would enter the world, yet he chose not to intervene. Therefore, sin entered the world because God chose it to. Did you really think through your response and are you sure you want to go there? That's not a question to tackle in this thread so let's just move on.

I don't mind going there, and have no anxiety at being there, but you're right that it's a different topic.

 

[RDKirk]

Well God is most certainly omnipotent. (Revelation 19:6) The Bible says so. And he is certainly capable of changing his mind. The Bible provides plenty of examples.
Whether or not he is omniscient is really what you are debating. And I believe you are redefining omnipotence to suit your agenda.

Or rather, we have limited human beings with both limited viewpoints and limited means of communication attempting to describe their experiences with God.

It's like an onlooker describing a surprising move by a chessmaster. Did the chessmaster really change what the onlooker thought was his intention, or had the chessmaster actually planned his moves farther ahead than the onlooker could envision?

Kind of like that infamous question that asks whether God is powerful enough to create a rock that he is not powerful enough to lift.
You are assigning descriptions and requirements to Omnipotence that may not necessarily belong. and no matter how powerful and free a being is, he cannot defy his own nature.

I'd point out here that the concept of "omnipotence" was not initially a concept of God's superpowers but rather a comment on God's governmental authority. Back when theologians first began applying the word "omnipotent" to God, it was still being applied to the Roman emperor.

The Roman emperor was the omnipotense.

As the omnipotense, the emperor was chief priest, chief general, chief diplomat, chief politician, chief chef, and chief fashion designer. He held all governmental authority, and the authority of all other officials was delegated from the emperor's authority.

A lesser official might be a "potentate" or even a "pleni-potentate" (today, ambassadors are still called "plenipotentaries"), but only the emperor was the omnipotense.

This is not to say God isn't, in fact, all-powerful in the physical sense.

 

[Radrook]

Quite; as I suggested, a believer's view rather than an atheist's.

Nevertheless, whether you feel their reasons are justified or not, those who view eternal life that way will not see it as an attractive alternative.

I never claimed that my view was anything other than the view of a believer. Also, you re correct. My feelings or opinions don't deprive people of freedom of choice and neither does God's for that matter.

Jeremiah 21:8
"You shall also say to this people, 'Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death.

Neither does God just want everybody and anybody to live alongside him in heaven or to inhabit his new Earth. Going to heaven involves governing the universe alongside His Son Jesus and lovers of sin don't qualify. Neither are people who love unrighteousness wanted on his new Earth.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years

Lovers of sin aren't allowed simply don't qualify for admission:

Revelation 22:15 ►
New International Version
Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

So the idea that God wants EVERYBODY and ANYBODY and is striving to force EVERYBODY to live alongside him regardless of who that somebody might be is simply a figment of an uninformed imagination.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't not believe in God. It's the fact that all the evidence seems to come from eye-witnesses and bronze age writers.

Were the people of the Bronze Age* unreliable?

What is wrong with eye witnesses? There isn't any way to experience anything except with our senses.

... until I see the evidence, I shall remain atheist

What are you expecting to see?

*FYI, I don't think the NT was written in the Bronze Age, but I am familiar with the attempted insult.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Or rather, we have limited human beings with both limited viewpoints and limited means of communication attempting to describe their experiences with God.

So you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God... ok.

It's like an onlooker describing a surprising move by a chessmaster. Did the chessmaster really change what the onlooker thought was his intention, or had the chessmaster actually planned his moves farther ahead than the onlooker could envision?




I'd point out here that the concept of "omnipotence" was not initially a concept of God's superpowers but rather a comment on God's governmental authority. Back when theologians first began applying the word "omnipotent" to God, it was still being applied to the Roman emperor.

The Roman emperor was the omnipotense.

As the omnipotense, the emperor was chief priest, chief general, chief diplomat, chief politician, chief chef, and chief fashion designer. He held all governmental authority, and the authority of all other officials was delegated from the emperor's authority.

A lesser official might be a "potentate" or even a "pleni-potentate" (today, ambassadors are still called "plenipotentaries"), but only the emperor was the omnipotense.

This is not to say God isn't, in fact, all-powerful in the physical sense.

That's what I said. That Omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean what the OP is wanting to make it mean. He is Omnipotent. He has all Power. But what that power is, is not necessarily what the OP wants it to be.

 

[RDKirk]

Were the people of the Bronze Age* unreliable?

What is wrong with eye witnesses? There isn't any way to experience anything except with our senses.

If there was nothing wrong with eyewitnesses, not even scripture would demand at least two (and another ancient writing, "Daniel and Susanna" in the Jewish Apocrypha points out that even multiple eyewitnesses can't always be trusted).

In my experience in military intelligence, we know quite well than an honest reporter can yet be an unreliable reporter, particularly when he's speculating about things he can't know first-hand...like the thoughts of another person ("For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.").

if we look at scripture alone for evidence, we see that God shows but seldom narrates, and when God has given explicit explanation of what He has shown (from angels, from interpreters, from prophets, from His own mouth), scripture explicitly says so (such as "...thus saith the Lord"). Absent an explicit mention of actual narration or explanation, we're left with men who had experiences with God but were left to their own limited understanding and limited explanation.

As I mentioned earlier, it's like an onlooker with only a limited understanding of chess attempting to explain the logic of the strategy of a grandmaster during the course of a match.

I remember one of the times I played a man who was much, much better at chess than I was. He announced, "I will checkmate you in eight moves."

Because I knew he was a much better player, I had no doubt that a checkmate was somewhere in my future, but I was determined it would not be in eight moves. Yet, inexorably, despite all my wits and effort, he maneuvered me to precisely where he wanted me, and then he pointed out that on his eighth move I would be checkmated. And to this day, I can not explain to you exactly how that happened.

And that is why we continue to need the Holy Spirit--God telling us what He really means us to know from the written word.

 

[RDKirk]

So you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God... ok.

Scripture does not define itself as the word of God. Scripture defines Christ as the Word of God.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God:

The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

God does not take control of a man like a demon taking control of a medium. A medium does not "channel" God.

And where God did explicitly dictate to a man, the writer explicitly said, "...thus saith the Lord" or something to the effect that those specific words or that specific understanding came directly from God (such as the interpretation of dreams by Joseph and Daniel).

As scripture was written by the inspiration of God, it must also be read and understood by the inspiration of God, by His Holy Spirit.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Scripture does not define itself as the word of God. Scripture defines Christ as the Word of God.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God:

The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

God does not take control of a man like a demon taking control of a medium. A medium does not "channel" God.

And where God did explicitly dictate to a man, the writer explicitly said, "...thus saith the Lord" or something to the effect that those specific words or that specific understanding came directly from God (such as the interpretation of dreams by Joseph and Daniel).

I could argue with you about what it means for the Word to be God-breathed. Try and explain the paradox of how it was dictated by God, but written by man at the same time. because man did not control the pen like a puppeteer.

But I get the feeling it will be a futile discussion. If the Word of God is fallible, then what parts do we trust and believe, and which parts do we not? Perhaps the entire book is false...?

With your reasoning, there is no such thing as Christianity. Every verse is debatable. Perhaps Jesus didn't say that he was the only way... just a way?

With that kind of thinking, any discussion is pointless.