The Problem of Good

[RobbyPants]

Ok, so how can God prove to you that He is all knowing?

If the question is "how can we know he is all knowing, then you'd be right. The first question you asked me along these lines is how we know he exists:

Ok.  I disagree that knowledge is impossible, but I certainly understand your position.  The only way for it to be proven to you that God exists is for you to be as God is and since you're not God it can never be proven to you that He exists as claimed.  

We weren't talking about God making Himself known, we were talking about how God could prove that He can't lie, or is all knowing, etc.  

It somehow split into two topics (as I mentioned above), but in context, this makes sense. You're right. Your two options are two simply trust he's telling the truth, or for him to somehow give you all the knowledge so you know he's telling the truth.

...although, I suppose the knowledge he gives you could all be a ruse, too. I don't know how one would know God made them all knowing. He could sandbag just a little and the person might never know. So, I suppose it all really comes down to trust, and trust alone. Which basically means that God's inability to lie is an inherently unknowable claim; one that's simply asserted and not proven.

Sure.  In every instance that God uses sin to bring about His purpose sin is involved.    

I don't mean that sin is involved tautologically. Obviously that's true of anything. If you ask me the purpose of a hammer and I tell you it's to drive nails, you can correctly point out that hammering nails involves the hammer. That's not what I'm talking about. The purpose is nails, which do their own thing. The nails hold stuff together, and the hammer is the tool for that. The ultimate reason for the hammer is to hold things together.

When you talk about sin, they way you describe the purpose is effectively like "to show how awesome the hammer is" and "to show restraint when not using it". Nothing is actually happening there that "needs" to happen. There's no other non-self-referencing purpose that you've mentioned.

I don't know that there's a single ultimate purpose revealed in scripture, except perhaps to glorify Himself.  A concept that is repulsive to the unbeliever, and at times to some Christians.

So, the purpose is narcissism? I mean, this is consistent with what a lot of other Christians say, but they always take umbrage with that wording.

You're equivocating 'infinite' and 'powerful'.  Think simple.  If there are things God cannot do, does He have an infinite number of choices of things He can do?

What's infinity minus a number?

I suppose you could describe his limitations as infinite, also, which would make the answer indeterminate. Perhaps thinking of this as an infinite number of options doesn't make sense, and instead it's an arbitrarily high number of options. We still get stuck answering "why'd he pick this setup" with the best of all possible worlds defense. That is an exceptionally ad hoc explanation of things.

You really like throwing around words like arbitrary, ad hoc, and circular.  If I assert that God cannot do X because X is contrary to His nature then there is a stated reason.  To say that God cannot do something just because would be arbitrary.  In the same way if something is ad hoc it is for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.  So saying that God cannot do X because His nature does not allow it is not ad hoc because it is considering the larger application.  Namely that we have to take into consideration God's nature when speaking about the choices He makes.

No, in this context, those words were used to describe any other limitation one might impose on God outside the one you mentioned (acting outside his nature). I've talked to others who try to limit god in ways that are basically consistent with the conclusion they want (ad hoc because they're doing it after the fact to steer to a particular goal and arbitrary because there's no basis for the limitation other than is works with their worldview). I wasn't accusing you of either in this case, but rather saying that I don't know how else you'd limit God without falling into one of these two categories.