Hi. I am 15. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and currently go to a Roman Catholic high school. But recently I have begun to question that. The only reason I believed it was because I was raised that way. I tried to look around the internet and see if there was any reason to believe in God. I couldn't find any. I found mostly contradictions. The biggest one being that I don't see how omnipotence and omniscience can be together.

If one is omniscient then one would know exactly what it was going to do forever. And then one would be very limited. For each and every unit of time it can only do exactly what it knew it was going to do and nothing else, otherwise contradicting its nature as omniscient. But since it can only follow along this contradicts its omnipotence.

However, I am not going to say that there is no possibility for a God. Perhaps my logic is wrong and there is a way that a god could be both. I would prefer the term atheist over agnostic though, because agnostic seems to imply to people that I believe it is a 50-50 chance that God exists, which I don't.

Hi Thorn,

I agree with that ... what's more it also screws up any notion of free will.

Welcome to our little corner of cyberspace

Kyu

If God knows everything and can do everything... can't he change what the frell he likes and still know everything?

But then he would have known that he would have changed it before he did it. If he didn't know that, than he isn't omniscient if he did know than it wouldn't have really been a change.

(July 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If God knows everything and can do everything... can't he change what the frell he likes and still know everything?

Nope because it'd have known in advance that it was going to change it and therefore wouldn't have changed it ... it's a logical paradox.

Kyu

Surely that assumes God won't change anything. How do you know this? Where's the definition of God that specifies this? God existing outside this timeline could poke his finger and alter some small detail. He still knows the full ramifications to the end of any timeline, they're just changed. It's only a logical paradox if you fix the definitions your way.

---

Also, if you're suggesting God should have foreknowledge, how does that transpose onto an entity existing outside of time as God is defined in Christianity? Foreknowledge becomes constant knowledge.

(July 19, 2009 at 4:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Surely that assumes God won't change anything. How do you know this? Where's the definition of God that specifies this? God existing outside this timeline could poke his finger and alter some small detail. He still knows the full ramifications to the end of any timeline, they're just changed. It's only a logical paradox if you fix the definitions your way.

---

Also, if you're suggesting God should have foreknowledge, how does that transpose onto an entity existing outside of time as God is defined in Christianity? Foreknowledge becomes constant knowledge.

No Frodo ... it is your god that sets the rules.

• If a god is omniscient (possessing of all knowledge) it must know the future.
  
• If that god changes it's mind then it changes it to some other future.
  
• If that is so then it was not right about the future and is therefore NOT omniscient.
  
• This is a paradox.

This is not rocket science ... it is logic.

Kyu

Fails for me for the reasons given above *shrugs*

(July 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Fails for me for the reasons given above *shrugs*

Reasons that are entirely inadequate.

Kyu

(July 19, 2009 at 6:13 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Reasons that are entirely inadequate.

To you but not to me. Unless you can communicate your point better.