(December 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: It is a strawman because he is assuming things I never said then citing those things as reasons for why my argument is bad. He changed my argument to something that he could then knock down....classic strawmanning.
I didn't assume anything from what you said. What I did was to draw what you said out by extension to another logical conclusion to demonstrate that the argument fails.
(December 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: I never even said God was omniscient. I don't know what God knows and I don't know the contents of the set of all knowable things so I am not in a position to make the claim that God is omniscient even if I wanted too.
You had said that, in creation, the knowledge of whether or not the sky would be blue did not exist until God made that decision, and omniscience covered this in that God would still know all potential knowledge. No, you did not use the phrase 'I believe this to be the case,' but if you are saying that God might not be omniscient, then my initial argument (that omniscience would prohibit God from being 'creative') stands.