(August 28, 2012 at 8:02 pm)spockrates Wrote: It seems you have not read what I've said about the difference between inherent and total omniscience, or you don't care to read it, or you don't understand.
OK, please let me ask you this: According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God to know?
I have read what you said. My problem is that you are endeavoring to redefine words; namely, onmiscience. Omniscience means 'to know everything'. If one knows everything, then the qualifiers 'inherent' and 'total' mean absolutely nothing...nothing.
You cannot provide one shred of evidence for the existence of your god, yet you want to burden this fictional character with omniscience. Epicurus laid waste to the omni-bullshit over two centuries before your christ was supposed to have walked through an ingnorant portion of the world. What fucking excuse do you have as an adult human being in the 21st century to believe this tripe?
If you wish to believe it, fine. Go wallow in your ignorance, but have the common decency not to defend this idiocy amongst your temporal human peers.
