Omnipotence Doesn't Imply Seeing The Future.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not if you(the omnipotent one) are included in that future. Its similar to building a rock you can't lift.

Also the inability to see the future perfectly does NOT mean that you can't guarantee your own promses.

If the above two statements don't have a logical flaw that I missed, I hope religious people realize that it is good for them even if their first inclination is otherwise. See why?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you imagine being able to infinately calculate the possible outcomes of every event and then respond to those outcomes, while existing in time, then you would see the future even though it does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP was very careful to specify that this god would be, or at least could choose to be, active in the future. The reason for that is what you say, if god set the ball rolling then left it, he'd necessarily know the future just by knowledge of all the variables involved. But the wild card is god himself, he can later choose to do things, on a whim, for whatever reason, that would influence those variables - thus despite being omnipotent can't predict the future. Assuming god is active in the future, he can only have predictive power (in this model) if his actions are pre-determined, and his actions being pre-determined would refute his being omnipotent.

[soon2bepro]

guesswest: It really doesn't matter whether He is or isn't active in the future. Being able to do anything doesn't mean you know how things work. Or that you know everything (which you need if you're to know the future).

Just as you imply He doesn't know what His own actions will be, as long as He's not omniscient, He may not know what other's actions will be. He may not know what the outcome of all kinds of factors interacting will be.

Just because He (could have) created the universe doesn't mean He knows exactly how it works.

Of course, if you throw Omniscience in the mix (and if Omniscience means knowledge of all, including Himself), He must know the future, so long as everything in the Universe (even Himself) works in a deterministic (logical) manner.

Then again, if you consider seeing the future as something doable, omnipotence means you have the power to "do" it. (as I said earlier)



PS: One hopes in time, humans will realize that absolute terms without a context are very often self-contradictory

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
guesswest: It really doesn't matter whether He is or isn't active in the future. Being able to do anything doesn't mean you know how things work. Or that you know everything (which you need if you're to know the future).

Just as you imply He doesn't know what His own actions will be, as long as He's not omniscient, He may not know what other's actions will be. He may not know what the outcome of all kinds of factors interacting will be.

Just because He (could have) created the universe doesn't mean He knows exactly how it works.

Of course, if you throw Omniscience in the mix (and if Omniscience means knowledge of all, including Himself), He must know the future, so long as everything in the Universe (even Himself) works in a deterministic (logical) manner.

Then again, if you consider seeing the future as something doable, omnipotence means you have the power to "do" it. (as I said earlier)



PS: One hopes in time, humans will realize that absolute terms without a context are very often self-contradictory

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption for this argument is that god is omniscient. Even if you interpret omniscience as referring only to the present tense, a god who creates the universe and then leaves it to it's own devices would necessarily then know the future as a result of knowing all the variables involved and thus the causal series that follows. God becomes the wild card when god chooses to meddle in future events, or reserves the option to do so, then you can't necessarily extract knowledge of the future from present tense omniscience because an omniscience which predicts god's future actions contradicts his being omnipotent - ie it would mean those actions are pre-determined and do not come about as a result of god's will. I believe this was the OP's point, I think it has serious problems when you introduce external factors like benevolence and determinism, but in so far as it goes and if you accept those premises in isolation, it seems logically sound to me.