Paul -
Is it true that when atheists talk about omnipotence being or not being compatible with omniscience, that they generally stay with that topic (which is based on a hypothetical god)? Why don't you want to stay with this one, when it is also about a hypothetical god? Richard Dawkins talks about how if, meaning hypothetically, if god exists, it would have to have evolved to become complex enough to be able to create. These questions are all hypothetical (ie for the sake of argument). I'm sticking with this hypothetical question, and offering an answer. If you want to stick it out and maybe refute how selfexistence would explain how god wouldn't have a creator, I'm happy to engage. If atheists ask hypothetical questions, they should stick with them rather than reverting to the usual, irrelevant topic of whether or not god exists. As an offered answer to this hypothetical question, it stands.
Is it true that when atheists talk about omnipotence being or not being compatible with omniscience, that they generally stay with that topic (which is based on a hypothetical god)? Why don't you want to stay with this one, when it is also about a hypothetical god? Richard Dawkins talks about how if, meaning hypothetically, if god exists, it would have to have evolved to become complex enough to be able to create. These questions are all hypothetical (ie for the sake of argument). I'm sticking with this hypothetical question, and offering an answer. If you want to stick it out and maybe refute how selfexistence would explain how god wouldn't have a creator, I'm happy to engage. If atheists ask hypothetical questions, they should stick with them rather than reverting to the usual, irrelevant topic of whether or not god exists. As an offered answer to this hypothetical question, it stands.
