It is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to ....

[FortunaMaximus]

I didn't say he was omniscient or omnipotent. At the outset, the entity may have been, and the experiment has evolved to the point that those two factors now have an element of uncertainity. He may still be omniscient, but I think there is reason to doubt his omnipotence.

And my problem lies with your approach and your efforts to counter the arguments of theists and atheists alike. In this thread, you've done little more than rabblerousing, and that shows an inherent lack of both class and willingness to explore the arguments of others.

Whatever your reasoning for creating the poll, you cannot help but introduce a bias favoring atheists, and in doing so, you have created a reaction where both theists and atheists have found reason to devalue your original poll and in turn, arguments as insufficient for the scope of a rational discussion on pure merits.

[jstnrgrs]

For an omniscient, omnipotent god, nothing is impossible, so therefore without reading your post, I can say that the answer is no.

[jstnrgrs]

The very idea of applying logic to an omniscient, omnipotent god seems silly to me. Logically, any such god must transcend logic.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is false for many reasons. Determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
The very idea of applying logic to an omniscient, omnipotent god seems silly to me. Logically, any such god must transcend logic.

[/ QUOTE ]]

And WHY would a God say 'I'm gonna make something that can't rationally determine I exist'? Wait... I know... I'm gonna make something, that BY DEFINITION means they can't logically determine I exist, and yet make that one of the mot important attributes of the species (besides the opposable thumb).

[madnak]

You're right. Hume was just a donkey.

[She]

OP, I was going to bring up the point that free will is the ability to choose how to react to external circumstances, and not relevant to the circumstances themselves... but perhaps I am misunderstanding your post. Are you saying that because a omniscient, omnipotent creator would know what characteristics that they were giving a person, then they would also be choosing how that person would respond to circumstances in the future? If so, then that is a good point and one that I had not previously considered.

Oh, and I am a christian/jew/muslim attempting rational thought, and occasionally failing miserably. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[quinn]

God being omniscient just means he already knows how he's going to exert his omnipotence. It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it. Demanding that God be able to do so would be similar to demanding that he be able to make a square circle.

Omnipotence doesn't mean you're able to do anything that can be written in a sentence (i.e. make a square circle). Just because you can put nonsense into a sentence doesn't mean that omnipotence isn't possible for God.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or rather, only in a relatively limited sense. In that sense I'd use terms like "It's impossible to see what the future will necessarily be and influence the future in such a way as to prevent it from becoming what it will necessarily be." Taken to this level, it's tautological.

Every time one of these threads crop up, I explain that determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. I also explain that omniscience doesn't preclude influencing the future (even on the part of the omniscient being, and certainly not on the part of other beings).

In some cases I've even linked to or paraphrased demonstrations of the truth of these statements.

Every time one of these threads crops up, somebody comes out and says I'm wrong. They never actually refute my demonstrations (probably wise of them, given that both of my positions have been demonstrated rigorously), and they never actually support their own claims (in fact, such claims have never been logically supported rigorously or otherwise, except in tautological or circular ways).

These people are wrong, and that's critical. The entire OP is based on a fallacious premise. But because, for some reason I can't fathom, the fallacious premise makes intuitive sense to many people, they continue to accept it as fact despite never having considered it in depth. So, hmk, quinn, all you others who think this is obvious: Here's a challenge. If it's so clearly, undeniably true, then it should be very simple to establish such syllogistically. All you have to do is construct such a syllogism, in which neither the definition of your terms nor the statement of your premises assumes the proposition to be proved. Then I'll walk away with my tail between my legs, and I'll change my location to "owned by hmk (or whoever)," and I'll always agree with you whenever you post from here to eternity.

I'm waiting...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's true that it's impossible to see the future and then be able to change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Or rather, only in a relatively limited sense. In that sense I'd use terms like "It's impossible to see what the future will necessarily be and influence the future in such a way as to prevent it from becoming what it will necessarily be." Taken to this level, it's tautological.

Every time one of these threads crop up, I explain that determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. I also explain that omniscience doesn't preclude influencing the future (even on the part of the omniscient being, and certainly not on the part of other beings).

In some cases I've even linked to or paraphrased demonstrations of the truth of these statements.

Every time one of these threads crops up, somebody comes out and says I'm wrong. They never actually refute my demonstrations (probably wise of them, given that both of my positions have been demonstrated rigorously), and they never actually support their own claims (in fact, such claims have never been logically supported rigorously or otherwise, except in tautological or circular ways).

These people are wrong, and that's critical. The entire OP is based on a fallacious premise. But because, for some reason I can't fathom, the fallacious premise makes intuitive sense to many people, they continue to accept it as fact despite never having considered it in depth. So, hmk, quinn, all you others who think this is obvious: Here's a challenge. If it's so clearly, undeniably true, then it should be very simple to establish such syllogistically. All you have to do is construct such a syllogism, in which neither the definition of your terms nor the statement of your premises assumes the proposition to be proved. Then I'll walk away with my tail between my legs, and I'll change my location to "owned by hmk (or whoever)," and I'll always agree with you whenever you post from here to eternity.

I'm waiting...

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you didn't say I had to have even remotely reasonable or agreed upon premises:

If free will and determinism are compatible, all apples will be red.

Not all apples are red.

Therefore, free will and determinism aren't compatible.

I prefer 'pwned' to 'owned,' thx.