God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful

[ToddNotTodd]

GOD can make a married bachelor

If you honestly believe that a contradictory thing can exist, then I think we're done discussing anything, because that's completely devoid of logic.

Theologians and Christian apologists (like William Lane Craig) understand that "omnipotent" does not mean, "can do anything that can be expressed in a sentence"...

 

[Petros2015]

 

[Moral Orel]

God can't lie. Hebrews 6:17-18
There. God isn't omnipotent. Next?

 

[-V-]

God can't lie. Hebrews 6:17-18
There. God isn't omnipotent. Next?

Illogical argument. "Omnipotence" never included logical absurdities in its definition. God can not stop being God. And being God includes perfection/holiness, which precludes lying. So God would have to stop being God, a logical absurdity.

 

[Moral Orel]

Illogical argument. "Omnipotence" never included logical absurdities in its definition. God can not stop being God. And being God includes perfection/holiness, which precludes lying. So God would have to stop being God, a logical absurdity.

That was more directed at the people who think that God can do logically absurd things (square circles). I'm not getting into a debate about whether God lying is logically absurd.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And being God includes perfection/holiness,

Why?

which precludes lying.

Why?

 

[-V-]

Why?

Because it's part of the definition of the Biblical God.

Why?

Because it's part the definition of "perfection/holiness".

 

[Uber Genius]

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.

Entertaining.

And look at all the thumbs up and likes!

God can also not make a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor.

The hidden premise is inserted between knowing and God's ability to change.

It assumes fatalism is true which it is not.

God knowledge of future events is a result of his choices. If he chooses if differently he would know a different set of truths.

God’s knowledge is not thought to be the cause of what will happen in the future. The claim is not that God’s knowing about something causes that something to happen. The event itself may be entirely uncaused – it could be a free event or it could be some quantum event that is completely causally indeterminate. The fatalist is not saying that God’s foreknowledge of some event is the cause of the event. But in that case, if the event is causally indeterminate, then how can God’s knowing about it in advance constrain it in any way?

1. Necessarily, P implies Q.

2. P.

3. Therefore, necessarily Q.


Fallacy of modal logic.

God's foreknowledge is necessary

But that knowledge is not causal (necessarily Q), that is the mistake in your hidden fatalistic premise.

Hope this helps those too quick to give a thumbs up understand their basic philosophical misstep.

 

[Uber Genius]

This is actually the scope modal fallacy.

It is a play on words where because P is true, not P is necessarily not true.

But that has to do with the law of non-contradiction. So the equivocation is with the necessity that either Trump is elected or not Tump. And then the subtlety is that it is not at all necessary that Trump be elected in the first place. It is misrepresenting a coningent fact (trump is elected) with a necessary axiom and the two are not related.

For more look up modal scope fallacy.

Else reply without any research.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Perhaps. But, if God were 'All-Knowing,' wouldn't He also know how to make all-knowledge compatible with having 'All-Power,' and then have the power to make it so?

I ask this question because I think most of the 'OMNI' talk that dribbles from the mouths of philosophers is absurd from a human viewpoint. So, let's just add one more absurd question (like the one above) to the pile.

2PhiloVoid

 

[durangodawood]

...most of the 'OMNI' talk that dribbles from the mouths of philosophers is absurd from a human viewpoint....

Yes. But thats no fault of the philosophers. The ideas themselves are absurd.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because it's part of the definition of the Biblical God.

According to?

Because it's part the definition of "perfection/holiness".

According to?

 

[-V-]

According to?

The Bible.

According to?

The dictionary.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The Bible.

Given particular definitions of "perfect", not all Christians believe that. For example, Charles Hartshorne, a well respected Christian Philosopher prominent in the last half of the twentieth century, wrote "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes". He didn't believe the Christian god was unchanging, so given a very rigid definition of "perfect", he wouldn't have agreed with the idea.

The dictionary.

What dictionary definition precludes lying from the definition of "perfect"?

 

[-V-]

Given particular definitions of "perfect", not all Christians believe that. For example, Charles Hartshorne, a well respected Christian Philosopher prominent in the last half of the twentieth century, wrote "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes". He didn't believe the Christian god was unchanging, so given a very rigid definition of "perfect", he wouldn't have agreed with the idea.

Note I said perfect *AND* holy. You seem to be trying to ignore the "holy" part. The Bible is clear that God is holy.

What dictionary definition precludes lying from the definition of "perfect"?

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of HOLY
Note the "perfect in goodness and righteousness" part. That precludes lying.

Oxford:
holy - definition of holy in English | Oxford Dictionaries
Note 1.2 - "Morally and spiritually excellent." That precludes lying.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Note I said perfect *AND* holy.

Yes, which means that both conditions need to be met. I'm trying to determine how you can meet the first condition. Until then, the second condition doesn't need to be addressed.

If you want to ditch the "perfect" part of the description, be my guest.

 

[-V-]

Yes, which means that both conditions need to be met. I'm trying to determine how you can meet the first condition. Until then, the second condition doesn't need to be addressed.

If you want to ditch the "perfect" part of the description, be my guest.

Did you miss where the definition of "holy" includes "perfect"?

Also, Matthew 5:48 - "as your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Did you miss where the definition of "holy" includes "perfect"?

So it wasn't necessary to say "perfect and holy" if "holy" includes "perfect".

So why do you believe this:

Holy
"Morally and spiritually excellent." That precludes lying.

 

[-V-]

So it wasn't necessary to say "perfect and holy" if "holy" includes "perfect".

It isn't necessary for you to pick nits, and yet here we are.

So why do you believe this:

Because of what the Bible says about things like morality and lying.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It isn't necessary for you to pick nits, and yet here we are.

I'm just clarifying, not trying to nit pick.

Because of what the Bible says about things like morality and lying.

Ok, so when you said...

"And being God includes perfection/holiness, which precludes lying."

...it's your understanding of the Bible that informs you as to what "holiness" really means rather than the dictionary.

The reason I mention it is because other Christians have had different views on lying. Even Luther reportedly said that the Christian god isn't against some lies.