Free will vs Omniscience

If God exists and is omnipotent then he is capable of anything, by definition. He is even capable of that which is logically impossible. He is even capable of allowing free will to coexist with his omniscience.If you say that he is not capable of even one thing, us having free will while he is omniscient, then he isn't omnipotent but something very close to it although still not it. So, if God is omnipotent then the coexistance of our free will and his omniscience has to be at least possible.

I haven't.

Right. No, its an explanation for how free will can coexist with an omnipotent/omniscient god. You know, what was asked in the OP.But I could certainly use it that way if you want me too. But if he is omnipotent then, by definition, he could exist as a God of love while he created us with free will but the inability to choose to harm each other. If you want to use that to argue that an omnipotent god is not capable of something then you're no longer arguing about an omnipotent god.Omnipotence is rediculous. Exactly.

Honestly I don't know. I'd have to go with a jar-like response to this one (sorry).If god is omnipotent then he is omnipotent regardless of any logical conclusion we can come up with that he isn't.I believe that god is omnipotent. One way I can look at it is that even if he is omnipotent, and has the capability of doing anything, wouldn't he also have the ability to elect to not use his ability. In that way he could maintain omnipotence and 'allow' us to have free will (like, just be sitting up there in all his power but not mettling in our affairs.) A semi-deist perspective I guess.Personally, if one guy decides to shoot another while god is omnipotent, I don't think that means that god must have pulled the trigger. Just becuase he was capable doesn't mean he had to, especially is he wants to let us do the pulling.

why not?

An omnipotent god could logically be both possible and impossible.

That's kindof a non-question, but...An omnipotent god could create a rock so heavy that he could not move it while simultaneously being able to move it, existing in logical contradiction, and not, forever and instantly, in the past and the future.I mean, how far(ridiculous) do we have to take this?What's the point?

Why not?That's the same question. What's your point? Let's cut to the chase...

You're right, I overlooked that. The reason I would say that he could is becuase if I said that he couldn't then it wouldn't be omnipotence in the first place. If it is omnipotence then everything is acheivable. Why do we have to come up with how its possible?

Honestly, I don't think it means very much.It might even be meaningless. Ummmmmmm........no?I don't really know.I'd say that you can't really maintain the definition of omnipotence if you not going to allow it to include logical impossibilities.

Becuase of the omnipotence, which I admitted was ridiculous in Message 7.

Not really. I still think that omnipotence is ridiculous. I could argue it either way or both.Its not something that is grounded in reality.

"My God can beat up your God!"

Gen 18:20-21

quote:

---

Then the Lord said, The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.

---

So much for "all-knowing", no? Abraham goes on to plead with the Lord to spare Sodom for the sake of the righteous people that might live there and he ends up changing the Lord's mind.

Some are better than others.I'm more proud of earning my degree than I am of showing up to work on time today.