[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Non theists have no problem, as the initial assumption of an omni3 God is invalid, any problems with the consequences of this assumption are a non-issue.

The Omni3 assumptions are confusing and lead to logical problems depending on how they are defined.

It is much clearer to avoid words like omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and instead just say what the being can are can’t do. Rather than letting confusing ambiguous potentially logically inconstant words that you don’t really understand do the work for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more difficult than that. Does omnipotent mean able to do whatever he wants, can he chose not to know things?

Does knowing everything mean knowing what you will do or just what you've done.

Can god make the world non-determinstic if he wants to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

3 of the many reasons why I don't think this idea of god makes any sense.

But the problem isn't understanding what the terms mean - it's with reconciling them with each other. Seems impossible to me that anyone could, but may be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't see the problem.
Omnipotent means that god can do whatever he wants. That means if he makes the world P then it is necessarily that not-P isn't the case (otherwise god hasn't done what he wanted).

Oniscient means being able to know anything that is knowable.

Omnipresecent adds nothing as far as I can see.

chez