From: starhawk@aztec.asu.edu (HEATHER L. NEWHOUSE)
Subject: Omni-whatever
Posted-By: azsech (Arizona Secular Humanists SIG Moderator)
Date: Thu Aug 26 18:42:03 1999


Since it keeps coming up I thought this might be a good new 
topic...

Reply to the portion of Harvey Hurst's post (#3440 ) regarding 
omnipotence and omniscience:

>Omniscience and omnipotence are
>mutally exclusive. 

There seems to me to be a few problems with the idea that 
omnipotence and omniscience are "mutually exclusive." 

It seems to me that omniscience (and omnipresence) are subsets of 
omnipotence.  That is,  if a being is omnipotent it must have the 
power to be omniscient (and not);  omnipresent (and not).  If the 
being is always omnipresent and still omnipotent,  he must never 
wish to not be omnipresent.  If the being is omniscient and also 
omnipotent,  he must be the type of being who never changes his 
mind,  and thus things always happen as he ordains.  Free will is 
a question of choice.  If he chooses to never change his mind and 
to be everywhere and know everything,  then omnipotence would 
provide him with the means.

My second issue is with these statements has more to do 
with the blurb from Smith's book:

There is another irritating problem with the
    idea of omniscience: it contradicts the attribute
    of omnipotence. If God knows the future with
    infallible certainty, he cannot change it -- in
    which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can
    change the future, however, he cannot have infallible
    knowledge of it prior to its actual happening -- in
    which case he cannot be omniscient.


Having the ability to do something does not mean that the 
being *will* do it.  A better argument would be that if a being is 
omnipotent and also omniscient,  he must *choose* not to change 
what he foresees.

• Crazy Atheist Libertarian
• Government Snitch?????
• David Dorn
• Fat Blond Guy
• Crazy Atheist