God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient

Well folks, I have the utmost respect for RT, but I must admit I was very disappointed by his reply up there. He's completely ignored my main and strongest criticism to his argument, that of relational/extrinsic properties vs. intrinsic properties. Hit control+f on your key board, and type in the word "intrinsic". Go ahead, do it. Then type in "extrinsic". Next type in "relational". You'll notice that while I've used each of these terms a total of 19 times in my previous round, my opponent has not used any of these terms once in his entire rebuttal. But don't take my word for it, use a philosopher's best tool. The find option on your browser.I'll get into this later, and show why my opponent has not even touched my main argument. He's simply ignored it.Prima facieWell now, my opponent seems to be clarifying what he meant above. That's fine by me, but it doesn't change the argument that I have given here. If we see that something looks red, we typically assume it is red. Likewise, when you hear the statement "An omniscient being can gain new knowledge" you immediately think "That's absurd! In order to gain knowledge you have to not have it first, which means you're not omniscient!". That's what I thought. Apparently my opponent figured you would think that too, since his first round literally starts with just that argument.Hence, it seems prima facie implausible to suggest that an omniscient being can obtain new knowledge.Aw man, straw man?Well now, my opponent objects to my summary of his argument, but he does not clarify. I'm trying to make his argument very very simple to understand, and a syllogism is the best way to do this. Nonetheless, I think this is an adequate representation of my opponent's argument. He is arguing that since the totality of stuff to know changes from moment to moment, that then God can gain new knowledge while retaining his omniscience. God can "know" all there is to know at every moment, even though everything there is to know changes from moment to moment.So my opponent's argument seems to be summarized...P1: The totality of all possible knowledge is something which is always changingP2: God knows the totality of all knowledgeC: God knows something which is always changing.If this isn't the case, my opponent must show why it is a straw man. If I make an argument and someone replies "that's a straw man" he has the burden to show how it is a straw-man. You can't just shout "fallacy" you need to show it. So my opponent should provide a revised edition of my summary of his argument.Assuming God is in timeMy opponent says that if it's possible that there is an omniscient being which is temporal, then such a being can gain new knowledge. Now, this is correct. However, why should we believe that it's possible for an omniscient being to be temporal? We've not seen a speck of evidence to believe this.Gaining knowledge vs. changing knowledge... extrinsic and relational vs. intrinsicWell this is the key area. Pay attention here, folks.Let's put it this way. God knows "At 2:30 on Tuesday, RT will watch Southpark." Now you'll notice that the knowledge of something, and the time we know it are two different things.Extrinsic properties are properties which rely upon something outside of the thing to be a property. When I shine a blue light on a rubber ball, and then a red light on it, has the "ball" itself changed? No, only it's surroundings; the relational/extrinsic properties which are entirely contingent. When I leave a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the freezer overnight, does it become a "new thing" after any amount of time has passed? No, because time is an extrinsic/relational property. In the same manner, when I have knowledge which persists in my mind through time, does the "passing of time" change the knowledge I have? No. Once again, because time is an extrinsic/relational property. Changing an extrinsic/relational property does not change the thing itself.Thus, changing the "time" at which we know something does not change the thing we know itself. Precisely because it is an extrinsic/relational property.My argument can be summarized...P1 Affecting an extrinsic/relational property does not affect the thing itself.P2 The passage of time is an extrinsic/relational property.C Affecting the passage of time does not affect the thing itself.And in our case, the "thing itself" is the knowledge that God has. So the passage of time, being completely extrinsic does not affect the knowledge contained in God, precisely because of it's extrinsic/relational nature.Otherwise, my opponent must either show that: (i) my analogies do not hold or (ii) they do hold, but affecting an extrinsic/relational property affects the thing itself.Now he's not done either. I've defended both of these. I've shown how my analogies hold, and I've shown that affecting an extrinsic/relational property does not affect the thing itself.Therefore, we cannot say that God's knowledge "changes" in itself. Only the extrinsic/relational properties are changing.A1... Still caught between the hornsP1: EITHER God is inside of time, OR he is not.P2: If God is inside of time, he cannot gain knowledge.P3: If God is outside of time, he cannot gain knowledge.C: Therefore, in either case, God cannot "gain" knowledge.My opponent admits that if God is outside of time, then he cannot gain knowledge. However, he still argues that if God were to exist IN time, he could gain new knowledge, and still remain omniscient.But as you will recall, this rests upon the success of my opponent's argument. I've thoroughly refuted this, and shown that the passage of time is an extrinsic property and does not affect God's knowledge in itself.Thus, this argument remains literally untouched. My opponent is still caught between the horns of the dilemma. He has conceded one horn, and has ignored the argumentation for the other.Argument 2. Modus Tollens, guys. ;)Now my opponent also deals lightly with this. But if you read it in context of my above arguments, you'll see that it is still sound. It reads...P1: IF God can gain knowledge, then he can lose knowledge.P2: God cannot lose knowledgeC: God cannot gain knowledgePro has disputed the second premise. But it seems entirely plausible for the reasons I've outlined above regarding why God cannot gain knowledge even if he is in time. Obviously, God cannot "lose" knowledge, since if he did, he wouldn't know anything. My opponent is arguing that God "loses" knowledge every moment, and gains new knowledge every moment, all the while remaining omniscient. This has been completely debunked above. God can't lose knowledge, since it's prima facie implausible. If he lost knowledge, he wouldn't be omniscient. My opponent tries to dodge this by falling back to the possibility that God can exist in time and gain/lose knowledge. But like I said, I've refuted this above.Conclusion My opponent's arguments are confusing. So it's not clear how they can be true prima facie. Remember, it seems prima facie true that God cannot gain or lose knowledge and still be all-knowing, since to be all knowing means to know everything. My opponent has tried to show that "everything" is constantly gaining and losing, and thus God's knowledge is always waxing and waning.But I've shown that time is an extrinsic/relational property, and affecting an extrinsic/relational property doesn't affect the thing per se. The thing remains the same thing before and after. Thus, my opponent's desperate trying to show that "everything to know" is always waxing and waning remain debunked. Time is extrinsic and relational. As such, when God knows something does not affect what God knows.My opponent is confusing the two. He's saying that when something is determines what it is. I've refuted this, and he's ignored it.I'll try to get some diagrams in the next round to demonstrate what I mean, guys. But for now, I think it should be pretty clear that an omniscient being cannot gain or lose knowledge.