The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Belacqua]

You can't have a three omni being.  Omnipotence is funamentally incompatible with omniscience.  To know everything you need to know with certainty what happens in the future.  That knowledge will, by necessity, constrain the rang of your actions down to, at most, a few very similar actions (and in most cases down to one), thus making you not all powerful, but uniquely powerless.

For people (Christian or atheist) who assume that an omniscient God would know things the way people know things, only more so, this is a reasonable objection. For people who assume an omnipotent God can "do anything," this is a reasonable objection. 

When an objection like this is so obvious, we should assume that it also occurred to Christians centuries ago. For people educated in theology, the objection doesn't address Christian claims about God.

For the standard philosophical theology, ever since Platonic and Aristotelian thought was subsumed into Christian thinking, God does not know things in the way that people know things. When people know things, there are two separate things: a person who is knowing, and a thing that is known. God, however, is infinite and excludes nothing. It is existence itself, the ground of being. It is impossible for God, therefore, to know of something which is not itself, since nothing is not itself. In theology, "omniscient" means that all knowable things are part of God. When they say that God "knows," they mean that nothing is excluded from God. 

"Omnipotence" does not mean that God can do anything. It is standard in theology that there a lot of things God can't do -- make a four-sided triangle, for example. The word "omnipotence" refers to the Aristotelian metaphysics by which all things are either in act or in potency, or in some mix thereof. Aristotle proved (to the satisfaction of many) that for any potency to be actualized there must be something which is already fully actualized. "Omnipotence" therefore means that the actualization of all potencies in the world depends on God. 

Whether one finds these arguments persuasive or not is not what I'm discussing here. I'm saying that the words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" refer to these standard and ancient systems. They don't mean what your objection assumes they mean. 

Moreover, these arguments are not modern patches which someone came up with to try to avoid old contradictions. They are the standard view of what a First Cause (in the Aristotelian sense) or the infinite One (in the Neoplatonic sense) would have to be like. The senses you are arguing against are the more modern meanings, which were dreamed up by people ignorant of philosophy. 

It's unfortunate that so many Christians only know of the simpler, obviously false meanings. Your argument is effective against them.