And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Zarathustra]

And here is something for a farewell

1. x is a two dimensional object that is a square
2. x is a two dimensional object that is a circle
3. - Can you draw X?

Martians logical answer: Yes, I can. Because 1 is redundant.
Here it is:  [attachment=0:22g3hwg0]circle.jpg[/attachment:22g3hwg0]  

[Martian]

Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God? I have to disagree for the reasons specified below.
I didn't forget that. I left it out because it's redundent to have.

No it is not. You cannot just leave something out of an argument that you are trying to refute. I am done debating you as long as you maintain that.

My original theory regarding you must be right after all.

Look at what I said:

(In my view, you would only need omnipotence, and you would have to have omnipotence be true continually. But don't worry about this, I'll work from your perspective.)

I was hoping that you wouldn't respond this way. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I am working using both "omnipotence" and "omniscience".

And here is something for a farewell

1. x is a two dimensional object that is a square
2. x is a two dimensional object that is a circle
2. - Can you draw X?

Martians logical answer: Yes, I can. Because 1 is redundant.

I went over why the analogy does not apply in my response.

This analogy is false. The reason is that omniscience and omnipotence do not contradict each other. "Omniscience" is the ability to do all that is logically possible. "Omniscience" is the ability to know all that is logically knowable. Omniscience and omnipotence refer to what is logical, and when something becomes illogical, it is no longer applicable to "omnipotence"/"omniscience". In contrast, the definition of a circle and square are fixed to a definition with terms that cannot change based on the argument. I believe that I have seen the problem with what you're saying.

Here's another way to say it:
Omni-x refers to what is logically possible.
So when something is not logically possible, it's not omni-x.
Ergo, omni-x can change based upon what the premises say is logical.

In contrast a circle and square each are defined in terms that do not change based on the premmises.
They are defined in contradictory ways. So no matter what your premises are, a square circle will always be a contradiction.

Please, tell me what you don't understand if you are confused about what I'm saying.

[Zarathustra]

.....
Here's another way to say it:
Omni-x refers to what is logically possible.
So when something is not logically possible, it's not omni-x.
Ergo, omni-x can change based upon what the premises say is logical.

Please, tell me what you don't understand if you are confused about what I'm saying.

I am not confused:

In my view, you would only need omnipotence, and you would have to have omnipotence be true continually. But don't worry about this, I'll work from your perspective.

But you did not. You misrepresented it yet again. That does not appear to be coming from a rational mind, hence our guess that you are a pretender.
And by the way: It is not my perspective. It is christian dogma. Again clearly stated in the OP.
NOW I am done. Maybe Asmodean wants to continue with your clinging on to the abrahamic god. Good luck.
 
Whatever helps you keep your faith.

[Zarathustra]

I am of course still ready to debate the rest of you fine people here concerning this.  :banna:

[Zarathustra]

Another approach to create a paradox between the two is :

Can an omnipotent and omniscient being deceive it's own knowledge?

Or in the form of an argument :

1. A being that is omnipotent can deceive it's own knowledge.
2. An omniscient being's knowledge cannot be deceived.
3. Therefore if an omniscient being exists, no omnipotent being can exist.
4. Therefore no being can exist that is both omnipotent and omniscient.

Hi Bowmore
  Great twist! Yeah when a construct is a paradox, I guess you can show it in many ways

[Martian]

Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God?

No. I am saying that you are misrepresenting it! Are you so thickheaded that you think, that to ask: "Does there exist a celestial teapot?" is the same as postulating: "There exists a celestial teapot!"

I did not say anything like this. We are speaking in logical terms, that means we work with statements. So we must draw out statements from the question to make an argument. The original question is, "Can God make a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it?" Before pressing on, we must ask ourselves the additional question, "Can there exist a math problem that God cannot solve?" the answer is a flat out, "no" because God can solve all math problems. But realize this, a question is not a postulation and cannot be used for an argument. I think that you're just using this as an excuse to evade the argument.

Here is how we answer the question:

"Can God make a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it?"

To answer this question we must see if God's omnipotence will allow him to make X. What is this X that we are talking about, and is it logical? X is the following, "a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it". Now, let us compare this to God's attributes, because it is true that God can solve all math problems. So, is it possible to have a math problem that God cannot solve when God can solve all math problems (omniscience)? Of course not. Therefore, X is illogical (in a comparison to God's attribute of omniscience). Now we look back at the question, "Can God make something illogical (nonsense)?" Well, the answer is no because God can only do what is logical.

Your argument can be generalized like this, "Can God use one attribute to undermine another one of his attributes?" Even you must be able to see that the answer to this question is "no." Like I said before:

Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

Take it or leave it. I don't care. You are not a fun debator because you dwell way too much on ad hominums.

My original theory regarding you must be right after all. Since your argumentation is based on misrepresentation as is so common with you guys.

You just love to taunt me, don't you? That won't help you one bit in a real life debate.

[bowmore]

To answer this question we must see if God's omnipotence will allow him to make X. What is this X that we are talking about, and is it logical? X is the following, "a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it". Now, let us compare this to God's attributes, because it is true that God can solve all math problems. So, is it possible to have a math problem that God cannot solve when God can solve all math problems (omniscience)? Of course not. Therefore, X is illogical (in a comparison to God's attribute of omniscience). Now we look back at the question, "Can God make something illogical (nonsense)?" Well, the answer is no because God can only do what is logical.

Now let's assume a god that is only omnipotent, and not omniscient. So a god that cannot solve all math problems. Such a god would be able to fashion a math problem he could not solve.
So the god that is omnipotent and omniscient, is somehow not able to do something which the god I propose can do. Which of both is then more powerful?
And which of those is then the only one who can rightly be called omnipotent. Indeed the one I proposed.

[Martian]

To answer this question we must see if God's omnipotence will allow him to make X. What is this X that we are talking about, and is it logical? X is the following, "a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it". Now, let us compare this to God's attributes, because it is true that God can solve all math problems. So, is it possible to have a math problem that God cannot solve when God can solve all math problems (omniscience)? Of course not. Therefore, X is illogical (in a comparison to God's attribute of omniscience). Now we look back at the question, "Can God make something illogical (nonsense)?" Well, the answer is no because God can only do what is logical.

Now let's assume a god that is only omnipotent, and not omniscient. So a god that cannot solve all math problems. Such a god would be able to fashion a math problem he could not solve.
So the god that is omnipotent and omniscient, is somehow not able to do something which the god I propose can do. Which of both is then more powerful?
And which of those is then the only one who can rightly be called omnipotent. Indeed the one I proposed.

They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

[bowmore]

They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

You are only watering down the definition of omnipotence. In fact by your definition I am omnipotent, because I can do everything that I can logically do. I cannot fly, but since it isn't logical that I can fly (having no wings and such) that doesn't harm my omnipotence at all.
The point of the matter is that omniscience restricts god's power to such a degree that we cannot rightly call it omnipotence, as without that restriction he could be more powerful. Just as I would be more powerful if I weren't restricted in my ability to fly.

[Zarathustra]

I did not say anything like this.

Yes you did:

2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.

You also said:

We are speaking in logical terms, that means we work with statements. So we must draw out statements from the question to make an argument.

 :borg:

[Zarathustra]

They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

You are only watering down the definition of omnipotence. In fact by your definition I am omnipotent, because I can do everything that I can logically do. I cannot fly, but since it isn't logical that I can fly (having no wings and such) that doesn't harm my omnipotence at all.
The point of the matter is that omniscience restricts god's power to such a degree that we cannot rightly call it omnipotence, as without that restriction he could be more powerful. Just as I would be more powerful if I weren't restricted in my ability to fly.

Nice description, Bowmore. I have pointed out in numerous posts that you can't restrict omnipotence. (Or omniscience for that matter.) But he has just blown that off... And he probably will with you as well.
Anyways. Since Martian also thinks that omniscience is intrinsic to omnipotence:

You are hereby proclaimed my new God. Since you are both omniscient and omnipotent by Martians "logic".
  Almighty Bowmore!

[Martian]

They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

You are only watering down the definition of omnipotence. In fact by your definition I am omnipotent, because I can do everything that I can logically do. I cannot fly, but since it isn't logical that I can fly (having no wings and such) that doesn't harm my omnipotence at all.
The point of the matter is that omniscience restricts god's power to such a degree that we cannot rightly call it omnipotence, as without that restriction he could be more powerful. Just as I would be more powerful if I weren't restricted in my ability to fly.

It is not *logically* impossible for you to fly. There isn't a logical restriction (contradiction) that says you cannot fly, rather you lack the ability to cause yourself to fly. Ergo, you cannot do all that is logically possible and hence, not omnipotent.

Perhaps this will make things more clear. An omnipotent object can do all that is permitted by logic. That means that omnipotent objects cannot make married bachelors, square circles, and the living dead. When one asks for God to "make a math problem that he himself cannot solve", we have a similar contradition. Who can make a problem which cannot be solved by God? Can you? Can Einstien? Can a supercomputer? Perhaps a more powerful God? The answer is that no-one can make such a thing. God can solve ALL math problems, so if there is a math problem which God cannot solve, it cannot exist logically (square circle). It doesn't matter how much power you have, it makes no sense to do the action that is requested in the argument. To show this we can put the question in it's purest form, "Can a math problem exist (which is solvable) but cannot be solved?" The absurdity of this question is where the issue lies.

[bowmore]

It is not *logically* impossible for you to fly. There isn't a logical restriction (contradiction) that says you cannot fly, rather you lack the ability to cause yourself to fly. Ergo, you cannot do all that is logically possible and hence, not omnipotent.

I lack the ability to fly, therefore it is logically impossible for me to fly.  

Perhaps this will make things more clear. An omnipotent object can do all that is permitted by logic. That means that omnipotent objects cannot make married bachelors, square circles, and the living dead. When one asks for God to "make a math problem that he himself cannot solve", we have a similar contradition. Who can make a problem which cannot be solved by God? Can you? Can Einstien? Can a supercomputer? Perhaps a more powerful God? The answer is that no-one can make such a thing. God can solve ALL math problems, so if there is a math problem which God cannot solve, it cannot exist logically (square circle). It doesn't matter how much power you have, it makes no sense to do the action that is requested in the argument. To show this we can put the question in it's purest form, "Can a math problem exist (which is solvable) but cannot be solved?" The absurdity of this question is where the issue lies.

The task is to create a math problem you cannot solve yourself. That is not logically impossible, since there are beings that can do this without a problem. If one is omniscient, the omniscience is a limit on omnipotence, since it precludes being able to perform that task.

The bottom line remains that gods that are not omniscient can do more than those that aren't.

BTW I think there is a difference between creating a square circle and creating a math problem you cannot solve yourself, the former is logically impossible, the latter isn't.

[Zarathustra]

....The answer is that no-one can make such a thing. God can solve ALL math problems, so if there is a math problem which God cannot solve, it cannot exist logically (square circle). It doesn't matter how much power you have, it makes no sense to do the action that is requested in the argument. To show this we can put the question in it's purest form, "Can a math problem exist (which is solvable) but cannot be solved?" The absurdity of this question is where the issue lies.

You pause for a week, and then return just to restate your exact same empty claims once again. Not one new thought.... what a surprise.  (I did warn you that he would just blow you off, bowmore.) Martian: Will you please refine your argument or stop posting in this thread, this is just getting stupid.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Hmm... Interesting.

Here might be an interesting take on the omnipotent/omniscient paradox. This is just food for thought. Not an actual argument:

What do the two axioms depend upon for their validity? If something is said to be omnipotent, what does that statement depend upon to be proven true or false? I think it would have to depend upon a will. Or rather, that something would have to be the cause to all things that "happen" so to speak.

This is a problem, because I don't think there is anything we can find in this something that would lead us to deduce all the myriad effects of the universe. Its the same problem that Hume put forth: There is nothing within any cause that, when examined, would lead us to deduce the effect in question. The only thing I can think of that would make even a little bit of sense is for "god" to be synonymous with all effects. But can you really say that a god that is synonymous with all effects is causing those effects? I don't think so.

Still, let's assume that god's cause is desire, for the sake of interest. So god desires something, and for some reason unkown, it happens in the physical world. Whatever God desires, somehow, it automatically happens, how god wants it, when god wants it, where god wants it. I think this is about as close to omnipotence as we can get.

Now, omniscience is a troublesome term. I don't even know where to begin with defining it. What is knowledge? Neurologically, the human mind has in memory an "idea" of a chair, and when the human encounters the chair, he/she "Knows" it by matching up whats in his head and what he sees. That's basic memory. Unfortunately, that chair doesn't just "pop" into the human's brain. It has to be experienced first, and the human has to examine it's function, properties, essense, so to speak. It is clear that neurologically, a human brain must first experienice the universe to get any form of knowledge of the universe.

This opens up a question. Did god "experience" the entire universe in order to get his omniscience, or has he always been omnsicent. If we are going by martian's "god must be logically restricted" point-of-view, then I don't think god could know the universe before he experienced it. Is that logically impossible? There must be some other method of knowing then, but only god knows what it might be. He would have to be radically different from an "entity". The possibility is open, but I'm afraid I can't pursue it any further, it just doesn't make sense to me.

So what about god having to experience the entire universe in order to become omniscient? Well, God certainly would experience the answer to all math problems, right? Maybe. I'm not sure. But if this god one day wanted a math problem he couldn't solve, and it just miraculously happened because of his omnipotence... The question becomes will he eventually be able to solve the mathproblem? Or does he want a math problem he can never solve? If he wanted a math problem he could never solve, but then later wanted to be able to solve it, would he be able to? I don't think any of these desires are logical impossibilities in themselves. It's perfectly possible to have a math problem you can never solve. god would simply lose his omniscience in order to have such a problem. I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Of course, can't it also be argued that the ability to not know a math problem is a type of will, consistent with omnipotence?

I guess the big factor relies on whether God's omniscience is immutable or knot. But what I'm interested is, is what does omniscience depend upon in order to be recorded true or false? It depends upon both god and the universe, I guess.

I wonder... what does the paradox of omnipotence/omniscence taken together depend upon? I think they both depend upon all phenomena. All things do happen. All that is capable of being known does exist. The question is, is there an entity behind the scenes, directing it all? If there is, it would not be an entity. The omnipotence/omniscience issue takes for granted that god is an entity. As an entity, it would certainly be illogical. But as something else? Perhaps God is schizoid, divided into two forces, "change" and "Identity"? Identity for all phenomena at one point. And change for the range of phenomena over two points. Perhaps there is an entity in charge of both? It's plausible.

Well, this wasn't meant to come up with a conclusion. Just to explore the argument, which I think is always better than trying to force an argument into what you all ready think. discussion?