An Omnipotent & Omniscient God Cannot Exist

[PruePhillip]

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he can't be omnipotent.

Here's why:

If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything he wants. This would mean that he cannot know his future actions, as if he did, his future actions would be constrained by his knowledge of the future, since he would not be able to perform an action that he knew he would not perform. Thus, if God is omnipotent, he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all events in the future. Thus, his future actions are constrained by his knowledge of what he will do, and he cannot act contrary to his own knowledge of his own future actions. Thus, if God is omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent.

That's it. That's the proof.

So, theists, is your god omnipotent and not omniscient, omniscient and not omnipotent, or neither omnipotent nor omniscient? Those are the only options.

And the universe, all that exists, just popped out of sheer utterly nothingness, for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jehovah is the most powerful Being in existence.....he is able to control his power to be delivered wherever it is required, in whatever measure is needed....not too much, not too little.

I have no idea why people want to put their own limitations on a limitless Being.

I find it interesting that you describe God as if your descriptions are facts and God fits the constraints of your conceptions. I have no idea why you believe you know and understand the most powerful being in existence. To truly do so, you would need to have equal ability. Surely you are not the equal of God. Although, I have gotten the impression you may believe it so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have always found it most interesting that the ones who put the most limits on God are Gods own followers.
Mostly in defense of their all mighty, all powerful God who can not interfere with humans...

Funny, she claims to understand the most powerful entity ever, but cannot understand a simple human. Quite a paradox.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So God isn't constrained by logic? Can God create a married bachelor?

If God is the source of everything, then God can't be constrained by logic, because then logic is not from God.

Stop applying logic to God.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Deeje]

I have always found it most interesting that the ones who put the most limits on God are Gods own followers.
Mostly in defense of their all mighty, all powerful God who can not interfere with humans...

It’s not that he cannot interfere, but he chooses not to unless his purpose is threatened in some way. If he interfered, it would lessen the lesson....

Humankind are reaping what they sowed. We are living the consequences of our own choices.

 

[stvdv]

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he can't be omnipotent.

Here's why:

Is, that so? You think you out-smart the Wise Rishis, Saints, Sages from the past? Humility is important to unravel Truth IMO.

IMO:
IF God is omnipotent, He can do whatever He Wills (not what He wishes), but he will only do that what is needed, and this He already knows
IF God is omniscient, He knows whatever is going to need to happen, and this He will Act upon

You confuse Will-power and Wish-desire. Humans are full of desires and Ego, hence they act from desire.
Of course you can superimpose your mental picture of "God" onto God, but that does not prove anything

 

[Deeje]

So you've put limitations on your own god. I don't believe that a god exist and don't know what a god is like.

So why bother commenting? Not exactly your area of expertise is it?

I only respond and object to your interpretation of a god and how you present it. It's not my fault that you don't understand yourself and your own beliefs. I'm simply relaying what you said back at you.

What a load of complete codswallop.

I put no limitations on my God.....but simply relayed what limits he places on himself for the reasons he states...if you have a problem with that, take it up with him....

 

[PearlSeeker]

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he can't be omnipotent.

Here's why:

If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything he wants. This would mean that he cannot know his future actions, as if he did, his future actions would be constrained by his knowledge of the future, since he would not be able to perform an action that he knew he would not perform. Thus, if God is omnipotent, he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all events in the future. Thus, his future actions are constrained by his knowledge of what he will do, and he cannot act contrary to his own knowledge of his own future actions. Thus, if God is omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent.

That's it. That's the proof.

So, theists, is your god omnipotent and not omniscient, omniscient and not omnipotent, or neither omnipotent nor omniscient? Those are the only options.

Eternal present is hard to grasp...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems illogical to argue logic about a being that is not constrained by the logic with which you argue.

God "isn't constrained by logic?" How do you figure?

Actually, in one respect I agree with you: the rules of logic are descriptive, not proscriptive, so they don't actually "constrain" anything.

What they do is describe all things that literally exist. If some God exists, then its existence and attributes won't create logical contradictions. OTOH, any logical contradictions are a sigb that the God we're describing doesn't literally exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yes
yes

He can also create a rock so heavy he cannot lift and then lift said rock whenever he likes.

Not to mention his collection of squared circles and oval triangles.

That's all fine and good for your God, but we don't have your God; we just have you making contradictory claims.

Are you costrained by logic?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I see this all the time, and it's evidence that certain people don't get it. After all, they declare that all Christians at least accept such things, when none of their creeds mentions it.

Why is the notion that God must be all these omnis wrong?

Well, first of all, it isn't at Biblical. It's based on later writers of theology, some of which had half-baked logic or fawned over how powerful God must be. Nor do all Christians accept all of these.
Secondly, most of these are poorly understood, that is to say that people who say that God is omniscient only understand God as seeing everything in a single timeline and don't understand the notion of parallel universes and alternate timelines (seeing only a single timeline is hardly omniscient, and it shows the atheist bias towards fatalism), or omnipotent means able to do anything but somehow forces God to do things (God doesn't have the ability to make choices?) and also ignores the ability of God to limit or restrain God's own power.
Third, omnipresence is admitted among these (and actually it's the only one of these that has any merit), but rarely explained, as evidenced by repeated statements like "if God really exists, why can't I see him?" : facepalm: You can't see God precisely because God is omnipresent. And because you are trying not to see him.
And lastly, omnibenevolence is not even informally canon, like the other three. It's something atheists added on to stump theists on the problem of evil. But let's get back to omnipotence. Atheists somehow demand "If God is all powerful, and perfectly good, why doesn't he help good people (like meeeeeee)?" Well first of all, if you're testing God to perform miracles for you, you've already established you're not a good person, and suppose God threw you a bone and made a big flashy rainbow with no rain, you'd just raise your standards anyway. Second, you've defined good and all-powerful in a really weird way. Suppose we had a mighty king, and the king wanted to have his subjects be free, happy, and able to pursue their dreams. Would such a king spoil his people? On the contrary, this would make them willful, impotent, and fat/lazy. In the absence of any cruelty, such as king would encourage these people to rule themselves, and take responsibility.

Omnipotence without the ability to say no, is a very pale shadow of omnipotence.

 

[sojourner]

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he can't be omnipotent.

Here's why:

If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything he wants. This would mean that he cannot know his future actions, as if he did, his future actions would be constrained by his knowledge of the future, since he would not be able to perform an action that he knew he would not perform. Thus, if God is omnipotent, he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all events in the future. Thus, his future actions are constrained by his knowledge of what he will do, and he cannot act contrary to his own knowledge of his own future actions. Thus, if God is omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent.

That's it. That's the proof.

So, theists, is your god omnipotent and not omniscient, omniscient and not omnipotent, or neither omnipotent nor omniscient? Those are the only options.

You're assuming that past, present and future cannot all coexist in the spirit world.

 

[Faithofchristian]

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he can't be omnipotent.

Here's why:

If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything he wants. This would mean that he cannot know his future actions, as if he did, his future actions would be constrained by his knowledge of the future, since he would not be able to perform an action that he knew he would not perform. Thus, if God is omnipotent, he can't be omniscient.

If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all events in the future. Thus, his future actions are constrained by his knowledge of what he will do, and he cannot act contrary to his own knowledge of his own future actions. Thus, if God is omniscient, then he cannot be omnipotent.

That's it. That's the proof.

So, theists, is your god omnipotent and not omniscient, omniscient and not omnipotent, or neither omnipotent nor omniscient? Those are the only options.

First of all can prove that God is
omniscient. As you say..
There is no where in the Bible/ Scriptures that is written saying that God is omniscient.
That's nothing more than man's teachings and nothing that God himself said.
You will not even find the word ( omniscient) in the Bible/Scriptures..

 

[Nakosis]

So by your logic, an omniscient being cannot know the past(at least some past) since those past no longer exist.

I'd assume an omnipotent God could change the past at will. So yes any actual past could cease to exist.

Maybe since God is timeless, only the present exists. A present which changes at will without a necessary connection to any past or future.

 

[Nakosis]

By being omniscient. Omniscience means knowing everything.

om·nis·cient
/ämˈnisēənt,ämˈniSHənt/

adjective
adjective: omniscient
knowing everything.​

And pretending that "everything" only means means "somethings" doesn't fly just because you don't like the fact that "everything" necessarily includes future events.

If you need to redefine "everything" to mean "just somethings" fine, but why do you get to choose which of the somethings are everything and which of the somethings are not?

.

Something which doesn't exist is not a thing.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

My definition of omniscient could be amended to include the future, then.

So, you claim that two concepts are incompatible. When some-one points out that they aren't, you promptly redefine one of them. Have you ever heard of the True Scotsman Fallacy?

 

[Skwim]

Something which doesn't exist is not a thing.

How about those "somethings" that no longer exist? Is the Obama Presidency not a thing? How about WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima, are those not things? They no longer exist. I'd say that anything we can refer to is a thing, even unicorns, Santa Claus, and the upcoming Presidential election. Boy, if that isn't a thing then we're in deep dodo.

..

 

[Nakosis]

How about those "somethings" that no longer exist? Is the Obama Presidency not a thing? How about WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima, are those not things? They no longer exist. I'd say that anything we can refer to is a thing, even unicorns, Santa Claus, and the upcoming Presidential election. Boy, if that isn't a thing then we're in deep dodo.

..

Unless this omnipotent God wills it to be a thing. Certainly such a being could will it all to cease to exist. There'd be nothing to know.

 

[Skwim]

Unless this omnipotent God wills it to be a thing. Certainly such a being could will it all to cease to exist. There'd be nothing to know.

So you're saying that WWII still exists? Germany was never defeated and Japan never surrendered?

.

 

[Nakosis]

So you're saying that WWII still exists? Germany was never defeated and Japan never surrendered?

.

I'm saying an omnipotent being could change history at will. maybe change it several times and you'd be none the wiser. You'd assume the history you know to be the only history to have existed. You memory of history could be altered as well by such a being. Tomorrow history could be different than what it is today and you'd be thinking it had always been that way.

I'm not trying to prove such a being exists. Only taking to what I see as a logical conclusion. An omnipotent being could change whatever they wanted and still have you thinking it was all consistent. You could cease to exist a billion times and be recreated with a memory of a different past each time.

And, maybe you have, if such a being exists. Without your memories, there'd be know way for you to know if you even existed yesterday. You believe you did because of the memory of yesterday which could be altered at whim by an omnipotent being.

I suppose the idea of an omnipotent being defies any logic.