• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

The Omniscient/Omnipotent Argument



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Needle

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
43
Location
In a state.
In this thread, I will argue the existence of the God I have been raised to believe existed. A God that is omniscient(all seeing) and omnipotent(all powerful). I don't care for your copypasta scripture here, so go ahead and forget about doing that. I want you to argue this point to me/with me without scripture.

OK, here we go.

God can see everything right? After all, he's God!

However, can God see his own death(regardless of whether he's physical or metaphysical)? Well, he can't die, because he's god right(I'm not talking about Jesus here either, I mean the big man upstairs)?

The point still stands, in that if he can't see his own death, he's not omniscient.

Therefore god(notice how he's not capitalized anymore, he's off the throne!) is not omnipotent, as he cannot see his own death.

If he is not omniscient, he is not onmipotent, as being all powerful would mean being omniscient as well(kind of redundant I know, but shut the fuck up and keep reading).

Therefore, we should not consider this to be god, as he does not fit the aforementioned criteria of being:
omniscient
omnipotent

Post your replies now please.
 

The Fishman

Keyblade Master
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
1,210
how does that make sense
i don't think that qualifies as a paradox since the idea of God foreseeing a death that is impossible is absurd
 

Eric

Retired.
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
4,859
Awards
5
Website
discord.gg
Well assuming that god could do anything, he should be able to foresee his own death despite the fact that he can't die. That's already a paradox and means that god can't be omniscient and by extension not omnipotent.

Makes perfect sense.

Apple Jaxx said:
and who said God could die?

: \
 

Needle

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
43
Location
In a state.
and who said God could die?

Well, he can't die, because he's god right(I'm not talking about Jesus here either, I mean the big man upstairs)?

The point still stands, in that if he can't see his own death, he's not omniscient.

Therefore god(notice how he's not capitalized anymore, he's off the throne!) is not omnipotent, as he cannot see his own death.

If he is not omniscient, he is not onmipotent, as being all powerful would mean being omniscient as well(kind of redundant I know, but shut the fuck up and keep reading).

Therefore, we should not consider this to be god, as he does not fit the aforementioned criteria of being:
omniscient
omnipotent

Post your replies now please.


I really don't need to say much else here(only am because of that minimum character limit).
 
Last edited:

Noir

Bronze Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,417
Awards
11
Age
30
Maybe he can't see it.... because he can't die?
Huh.... I don't actually care being an atheist and all. But I've never heard of God supposedly dying.
 

Mr. Wilhelm

Also Sprach Zarathustra
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,893
Age
34
Location
Valhalla
Website
www.animus-sorrow.org
Who said that he couldn't.
The defintion of his existence.

God is a being that *cannot* die. Now I don't mind at all peoples trying to say that God don't exist because there's plothole in the Bible and all, I even agree to those discussion as they are often very good intellectually, both for believes and non-believers.

But the "God cannot see his own death" just doesn't make sense to me. It's based on a system where death is unavoidable, and if God exist this system doesn't apply to him. It's like saying "God cannot predict his next meal", of course he doesn't if eating isn't part of his system.
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
Basically, god can't do anything humans could, amirite? If that premise were to be true, how can it create? Creation is a human concept after all, which mankind is getting more adept at too.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
5,612
Awards
4
Location
∵Иೆ!?तっФ」
Using logic to disprove the existence of an inherently illogical being is almost as stupid as using logic to prove said being. The whole concept of God is that he transcends comprehension, and yet here you are trying to make a comprehensible spin on it.
To have faith, then, is to believe by virtue of the absurd. Don't bother applying reason here, it doesn't work.
 

Wehrmacht

cameo lover
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
14,057
Awards
3
Location
brland
Using logic to disprove the existence of an inherently illogical being is almost as stupid as using logic to prove said being. The whole concept of God is that he transcends comprehension, and yet here you are trying to make a comprehensible spin on it.
To have faith, then, is to believe by virtue of the absurd. Don't bother applying reason here, it doesn't work.

Beat me to it.
 

KeybladeLegacy5

SENPAI!
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,326
Location
Road To Dawn
I dont think God will ever die so there is no way for Him to see His death if it wont happen...I believe God is omniscient(all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (everywhere)
 

Aqua.

ichimaru gin~ <3
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
4,277
Location
California
That is what he means.

He can't die.

So he can't see his death.

Therefore, he is not omniscient. Why? Because he can't see his death. Even if he doesn't have a death, he still can't see it. It will never come to him.
 

Needle

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
43
Location
In a state.
Using logic to disprove the existence of an inherently illogical being is almost as stupid as using logic to prove said being. The whole concept of God is that he transcends comprehension, and yet here you are trying to make a comprehensible spin on it.
To have faith, then, is to believe by virtue of the absurd. Don't bother applying reason here, it doesn't work.

Well then, I guess your god isn't the god I'm attempting to disprove the existence of here(as your god is pretty much as good as not having a belief in god at all). I'm not talking about a god we know nothing of and never can(assuming you're an agnostic, and P.A.P. Principle Agnostic in Practice). I'm talking of a god that we supposedly do know of, and supposedly do fully understand.

In this thread, I will argue the existence of the God I have been raised to believe existed. A God that is omniscient(all seeing) and omnipotent(all powerful).

I wasn't raised agnostic or pantheistic, or whatever you are.
I suppose I did need to clarify, I guess I was raised christian. I just didn't want to specifically say the christian god, as there's most likely more than 1 religion who believe in a god similar to this. I don't know all of the religions with gods like this, and don't care to take a month researching and listing them all. So I stuck with whatever god fits in the omniscient and omnipotent argument, and that is not your god. As your god is beyond all comprehension and cannot be argued with because it's illogical.
 

Mr. Wilhelm

Also Sprach Zarathustra
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,893
Age
34
Location
Valhalla
Website
www.animus-sorrow.org
If he can't do something, he is not god.

Why does this need further explanation?
Because you're basing yourself on a human system of thought that doesn't relate to God in any way. As simple as that. As said before, logical system won't work for God. If he does exist, it implies there is notions humans cannot understand, and sorry to say, you're part of humanity. That is, if he does.

Basically, god can't do anything humans could, amirite?
Remind me who said that?
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
That's what most believers i see using as an argument, same goes for so called "human" logic. All we know is "human" logic, as a matter of fact, it has had a good track record concerning explanation of natural phenomena and formation of theory, so why discard it immediatly when some supposed higher being is involved?
 

Hidden

A boy named Crow
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,615
Awards
6
Age
35
Location
A world that never was
Website
www.freewebs.com
Defining a god as "omniscient" and "omnipotent" is not really understanding that god. Indeed, what this proof goes to show is how completely we don't comprehend those terms--the argument here is not so different from "A mathematical concept" (http://forums.khinsider.com/intel/139832-mathematical-concept.html) discussed (and dismissed) not too long ago in Intel. The reasoning is fine in a contained and controled setting, but it is being applied to terms that we don't really understand, much less put in those parameters. To ikkuh2*, this is (at least partially) the answer to your question as well--basic arithmetic has a good track record in dealing with contained numbers, but "infinity+1" doesn't really work, as you point out in the thread linked above.

*I'm still calling you ikkuh2, because typing out "upside-down triangle" just sounds dumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top