It is Logically Impossible for God to Have Perfect Foreknowledge

According to the structure laid out in R1, Con should have presented his opening arguments in R2. He has deviated from this structure, but, in this instance, I would ask voters to forgive him that oversight. I am willing to roll with it. Rebuttals 1. Omnipotence1a. Free WillBy definition, omnipotence is unrestricted and unlimited. Omnipotence necessarily entails the freedom to choose and perform any option. Whether or not the god chooses a certain option does not change the fact that the god must have the freedom to choose that option. If the god’s ability to choose a certain option is restricted, that god is no longer omnipotent. That is what is meant by free will. The freedom to will anything. 1b. Preeminence My opponent is confusing all-powerful with powerful. Of course, two powerful entities can exist at the same time. Two all-powerful entities can not. Remember, omnipotence is unlimited. If there were more than one equally-powerful god out there, none of them would be truly omnipotent, because all would be limited in their actions toward one another. If God can not destroy another, equally-powerful god without being destroyed himself, then he is limited, and is not omnipotent. If the other god can not destroy God, that god is limited as well. If God can destroy the other god without being destroyed himself, then they obviously are not equally-powerful. Two omnipotent beings can not exist at the same time simply because such an existence would create a course of action that neither god could take at will, negating their omnipotence. Also, by the same token, there can not exist a being who is more powerful than God, because that would create the same limitations, negating God’s omnipotence. My opponent’s example of the U.S. and Russia is irrelevant. Neither country is by any means omnipotent. 2. Perfect Foreknowledge Con says, “Why would God have the desire to change the future…?” It does not matter if God ever has the desire to change it. In order to be omnipotent, he must have the ability to change it. However, as I have shown in R2, God can not change the future from what he has foreknown without negating the perfection of his foreknowledge. Any situation that creates a limitation for God negates his omnipotence. Therefore, perfect foreknowledge negates God’s omnipotence. 3. Contradictions My opponent is missing the point. Logical contradiction is what this debate is all about. If something logically contradicts, it is therefore logically impossible. 3a. Restriction Con says, “I do believe God has the power to deviate from what he foreknows…” Impossible, if his foreknowledge is perfect. By virtue of his foreknowledge being perfect, God is forever limited. He is forever required to follow in the path of his foreknowledge, without deviation. Any deviation would negate the foreknowledge’s perfection. God can’t even think about deviating unless he foreknew that he would think that! He certainly does not have the power to deviate as long as his foreknowledge is necessarily perfect. Con: “If I foreknew that someone was going to pick a specific option in the future from a list of others, does that mean that they ‘can’t’ choose a different option because I foreknew?” If Con’s foreknowledge is perfect, then yes, it does mean that. There is a big difference between predicting that something might happen, and perfectly knowing that it will happen. If I perfectly know that something will happen, it must happen, or else I didn’t perfectly know. If I foreknow with perfection that someone will pick a certain option in the future, they can not pick any other option, or else my foreknowledge wasn’t perfect, was it? Con: “I don’t see why any perfect God would ever desire to change his ways…” We are not talking about desire; we are talking about ability. As previously covered, perfect foreknowledge restricts God’s ability. It stands that God can not alter the future from what he has perfectly foreknown. He is restricted to only those actions that he has foreknown, and only at the exact times that he has foreknown. Restriction negates omnipotence. 3b. The Source of Perfect Foreknowledge 3b1. It Existed Infinitely with God Con has not really rebutted my point here. It remains true that whatever God foreknew from infinity past has forever restricted him to a single course of action. Perfect foreknowledge makes the actions of all future beings preeminent to, or at least equal to, God’s ability. God could not have given it to himself, because self-restriction is still restriction. The fact that any path exists that God can not take without restricting himself negates his omnipotence. 3b3. Someone Else Gave it to Him If someone else gave God perfect foreknowledge, then someone else restricted God to forever follow a single course of action. If God is preeminent, then no one else could have restricted him. If God is not preeminent, he is not omnipotent. Dialogue on Perfect Foreknowledge My opponent tries to make a distinction between knowledge of future events that can’t change, and knowledge of future events that won’t change. There is no distinction when we’re talking about God’s perfect foreknowledge. If God knows that something will not change, that something can not change, or else God was wrong. God can not be wrong, or his foreknowledge was not perfect. By virtue of its perfection, God’s foreknowledge requires that future events can not be changed.Back to you, Con.