Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Sheldon]

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.  

There is the paradox of free will of course, or theological fatalism, but this might also apply to any deity itself, if it was omniscient it must necessarily know the future exactly as it will happen, or put a limit on it's knowledge. If it knew the future exactly as it would happen, then it could not change it, hence it would have no autonomy, let alone be omnipotent. 

I've seen a Muslim try to argue this away using relativity, it ended in a contradiction and they just vacillated between those contradictions. 

An omnipotent entity could not of course limit it's own actions, which one could argue sets a limit on its powers. 

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? 

I was addressing a specific idea, I never assigned it generically, in fact I don't believe I assigned it to anyone, beyond addressing the notion of omnipotence and omniscience. It is a straw man only if I falsely assign a claim or belief to someone else they have not made. 

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?

If you read my post you will see I was addressing the concepts themselves, and then added that some apologists I have read and encountered tried to rationalise those concepts, but that I did not find their arguments very compelling. I once had an apologist tell me I believed in god. I told them I certainly did not, they then said that god was the universe and everything that existed, so I was wrong. I don't find such semantics very compelling, and though this example is perhaps almost comical, it illustrates my point about "omniscient and omnipotent lite". After all, I did not create the definitions, nor assign them to any deity, I merely address them when the claims are made.