Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.

I think this is just a simple play on words that doesn't really mean anything.Like saying "I can't squash God like an ant under my boot, therefore that's something God can't do, therefore God is not omnipotent".But that's not the function of the word omnipotent. Omnipotent is just the word used to describe a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-beneficial, present-everywhere... that sort of thing.Certainly anything that can be squashed like an ant is not all-powerful. Therefore it would be the ability to be squashed like a bug that would remove God's omnipotence, not the other way around. In the same way, if God could change His mind, then He would not be omnipotent (since He would not be all-knowing), not the other way around.It's just a problem with understanding language, not an actual problem with omnipotence.God can't be squashed like a bug.
God can't change his mind.Neither of these affect God's ability to be:
all-powerful
all-knowing
all-beneficial
present-everywhere
...
Therefore, this is not an idea that prevents God from being omnipotent.What prevents God from being omnipotent is that He does not exist in the first place.

Exactly. It's just a play on words.In order for God to be squashed like an ant He'd have to erase His ability to be all-powerful. No longer all-powerful = no longer omnipotent.
In order for God to change His mind He'd have to erase His ability to be all-knowing. No longer all-knowing = no longer omnipotent.Remember this:

quote:

---

In the same way, if God could change His mind, then He would not be omnipotent (since He would not be all-knowing), not the other way around.

​

It's just a problem with understanding language, not an actual problem with omnipotence.

​

God can't be squashed like a bug.
God can't change his mind.

​

Neither of these affect God's ability to be:
all-powerful
all-knowing
all-beneficial
present-everywhere
...
Therefore, this is not an idea that prevents God from being omnipotent.

---

If you are correct, if not being able to change His mind removes God's omnipotence, you should be able to show me which of the following God no longer has when He doesn't change His mind:all-powerful
all-knowing
all-beneficial
present-everywhereBut, you can't do that, that's because He doesn't lose any of those things. That's because He doesn't lose His omnipotence. In fact, not being able to change His mind (because He is all-knowing) is what defines His omnipotence, not what removes it.

Quantum effects are not required to get around determinism.One way or the other, more information on how the brain and mind work is required before anything can be concluded.However, in the mean time, think of this:Yes, all decisions are electrical currents and chemicals of the mind.
However, the mind has the ability to change those very electrical currents and chemical reactions due to our conscious thoughts and decisions.
Therefore, the fact that all decisions are electrical currents and chemicals of the mind is not enough to show that they are, indeed, deterministic. Since the mind can alter these very same electrical currents and chemicals at will, in some fashion of a feed-back loop, more information on exactly how this "feed-back loop" works is required.A quick, basic, simple example:Let's say that if chemical A is used and electrical currents 1 and 2 fire, I will put my left sock on before my right one.
However, if chemical B is used and electrical currents 3 and 4 fire, I will put my right sock on before my left one.Now, since the conscious brain has some control over which chemicals are used and which electrical currents are fired... I can manipulate my mind in such a way as to force chemical A and electrical currents 1 and 2 to be used, or force chemical B and electrical currents 3 and 4 to be used. Therefore, I can choose to put on whichever sock first I'd like.This may or may not be the way things are, but we don't know yet, more information on how the brain and mind work are required.However, this little scenario is enough to show that strict-determinism is not a must-be-true answer... yet, regardless of the effects of the quantum world.We'll see.

That's the question, isn't it? I didn't say I could show determinism is patently false. I just said I can show you that determinism isn't patently true, either. This is exactly what I mean. Why (and how) do we force chemical B over chemical A? More information on this sort of question is required before we can conclude anything about determinism. Papers are unnecessary. Only common knowledge of the most basic of brain-scans are required. The ones where the brain has a stable state, and then the patient can say they are thinking of something and certain areas of the brain light up. Then they can say they're thinking of something else, and different areas of the brain light up again. And at any time the patient says they aren't thinking of anything imparticular, the brain's lights return to the original stable state. This shows that (somehow, someway) we are capable of consciously controlling when distinct areas of our brains activate and deactivate with our will alone.That's all that's required to show that full determinism isn't shown to be true (yet) even though the chemicals and electrical currents that make up our brain are in-and-of-themselves deterministic.It very well may be that our decisions to turn those areas on and off are deterministic in and of themselves.. but for now, there is nothing to suggest such. It certainly seems like the deterministic nature of the variables themselves (when taken independently) should force the end result to be deterministic as well. But we can't argue with experimental data. The experimental data currently shows that we have an ability to turn on and off distinct areas of our brain simply by willing it to be so.As I said before, more information is required before a conclusion can be validated.I, as well, am no neuro-scientist. And my background in the area is strictly layman. If you (or anyone else) do have additional information that further illuminates this experimental data, that would be very interesting to hear about. However, as far as I've ever heard, we've yet to fully understand these aspects of our brain and mind.