Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

Bel may not be the most diplomatic in his approach, but I think he has a point in saying that we need to engage the actual arguments and conceptions of theologians.  It's easy to start from what we imagine has to be the case, only to find that when we get to the end, some clever Christer has already anticipated our objection.

Diplomacy isn't necessary, I'm pretty thick skinned, but I tire of someone lording and posturing all the time, mentioning great historical philosophers constantly, but failing to offer anything from them that directly addresses the post or point.

Yes it is clear one cannot address all concepts of deity at once, that is pretty obvious, and since Christianity has approx. 45k different sects and denominations globally, then of course apologists are ging to handwave objections away when it doesn't mesh exactly with their subjective version of theistic belief, but then I had not remotely suggested all theists believed in an omniscient or omnipotent deity, or that they all held the same idea of what those words mean for the deity they believe in, nor would I. Nor had I suggested no one had ever tried to rationalise the contradictions innate in concepts like omniscience and omnipotence, I have just have never found any of the arguments very compelling, if he thinks there is a compelling one, all he had to was offer it, without the arrogant and belittling posturing.

Well, whatever. You've now claimed that omnipotence and omniscience violate the law of noncontradiction. Having claimed that, it seems reasonable to ask you to explain why you believe this to be the case, and explain how that occurs. While it's true that one cannot answer every potential description of a god, the theology behind omniscience and omnipotence of the Christian god is fairly well-developed and while there is some variation in conception, the contours of the debate concerning omnipotence and omniscience are fairly well-established. If you are not engaging mainstream beliefs, then in what way are you not constructing a straw man? You're certainly welcome in making the case to define which specific god and which specific versions of omnipotence and omniscience you are making the claim with respect to, but if very few if any people actually agree with your definitions, then what is the point of your demonstrating that a god which no one worships cannot exist?