God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient

I will delve more into the relational vs intrinsic properties argument below...Prima FacieCon claims that his argument still remains, because when we hear about an omniscient being gaining knowledge, we automatically think that is impossible at first glance. However, we only think that assuming that the set of "everything that there is to know" doesn't change. However, if we assume that it does change, then it is prima facie warranted that an omniscient being can gain knowledge. The prima facie case depends on certain initial assumptions, and Con has given us no reason to assume that the set of "everything that there is to know" doesn't change. Therefore, there is no good prima facie case for my opponent here. Straw-ManI didn't shout out "fallacy" I specifically said this may be a straw-man. Regardless, the argument is simple enough without a syllogism. What is happening "now", and the facts that surround that are always changing. Therefore, God's knowledge about "now" necessarily always changes. The facts he knew about "now", when it was "now" 5 minutes ago, God cannot know "now". He lost that knowledge. For example, I ate breakfast 5 minutes ago. 5 minutes ago, God knew that "Now, I am eating breakfast". He cannot know that now though, because I am not eating breakfast anymore. The thing is that even if the set of "everything there is to know" always changes, God always knows it. Thus, omnsicience is still obtained regardless of knowledge lost or gained. Is It Possible For An Omniscient Being To Be In Time?I'll give the same support for this possibility, that Con gave for another possibility in another one of his debates:"(i) This seems perfectly possible. There are no explicit contradictions in it. It certainly isn’t prima facie impossible. So we should accept it as a logically coherent possibility.(ii) It’s quite conceivable." [1]Defending a possibility of this sort to any further extent is unnecessary. Also, Con still hasn't proven that God is timeless in the actual world, which is necessary to avoid my argument. Gaining knowledge vs. changing knowledge... extrinsic and relational vs. intrinsic"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."Con says that the knowledge of something, and the time we know it are two different things. However, this doesn't matter, because God would still have knowledge of when he knows that thing! Since God would still have knowledge of when that thing occurs, and whether or not it occurs "now" or not, then these distinctions my opponent mentions mean absolutely nothing. God would still be gaining knowledge. To grab from my opponent's example:-------Assuming I only watch South Park this one time for conceptual ease, on Tuesday at 2:30, God does not know:"Now, RT is watching South Park"He cannot know that before 2:30, as that would be false knowledge. Therefore, God not knowing that before Tuesday is still in line with Omniscience, as God can only know what is true. When, 2:30 comes around, God knows:"Now, RT is watching South Park"-------The reason God's knowledge can change is because the set of what can be known changes if God is in time. There is no way out of this argument for my opponent. The statement "Now, RT is watching South Park" is either a fact that can be known, or fact that cannot be known (as it is false or impossible). Before 2:30, it is a fact that cannot be known. At 2:30, it is a fact that can be known. God necessarily gains knowledge if he is in time and omniscient. Con also states:"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."My opponent says "no", but the answer is "yes". The passing of time necessarily changes the set called "Mike's knowledge about now", because the facts about "now" are always changing, and there are facts about "now" that are true "now" that weren't true 5 minutes ago. If you ate an hour ago, an hour ago, you could have said "I know that now, I am eating a sandwich". You cannot say that now. Your total knowledge changed members of the set. "Once again, because time is an extrinsic/relational property. Changing an extrinsic/relational property does not change the thing itself."Even if my opponent has examples where relational properties don't change a thing, wouldn't mean that applies to knowledge, or that this applies to everything. Therefore, these examples don't support Con's premise, and those examples were his only justification. Also, the premise is false. Time clearly changes things (it changes an animate object, like a human organism, to an inanimate object, like a corpse), especially in the in the case of knowledge specifically. The reason the passing of time changes the knowledge of an omniscient being, is that to be omniscient, you have to know what is going on "right now". However, the facts about "right now", are always changing. Therefore, God's knowledge is always changing. I would say my opponent's section here is mostly a red-herring. The reason time necessarily effects God's knowledge if he is in time, is because the facts about what is occurring "now" are never the same. A second ago, I would have said "now I am doing x" and I would be right, however, if I said "now I am doing x" right now, I would be wrong. Therefore, a moment ago, God knew that "now I am doing x" if he is in time and omniscient, but now, he does not know that. An omnicient being, if in time, necessarily lost knowledge.Cons argument is essentially that time passing doesn't change God's total knowledge. However, again it certainly does, because at any given time, what we talk about when we speak of "now" is going to be completely different from any other time. Ergo, my opponent's premise "Affecting an extrinsic/relational property does not affect the thing itself" is clearly false, thus, his argument is unsound. Yes, as time passes, it would change an omniscient being in time's knowledge since facts surrounding what is happening "now" never remain the same. Since the facts around "now" always changes, then God's knowledge of the facts about "now" can never remain the same either, and God would still be omniscient by definition. It simply follows. Argument 2 From Con"Obviously, God cannot lose knowledge, since if he did, he wouldn't know anything."The above is false, as God has to lose knowledge if he is to be omniscient and in time, because the facts that were true about anything called "now" 5 minutes ago, are not true about 5 minutes ago "now". "This has been completely debunked above. God can't lose knowledge, since it's prima facie implausible."This has been debunked already. It is only prima facie implausible if you assume the set of "everything that there is to know" never changes, but that assumption is false because facts about what we call "now" are changing every minute. Thus, Con's prima facie case is easily refuted. "If he lost knowledge, he wouldn't be omniscient"I already refuted the above. God can lose knowledge and still be omniscient, because to be omniscient, one only has to know all there is to know. Since all there is to know is always changing, then God's knowledge can always change and God would still be completely omniscient by definition, at all times. ConclusionAn omniscient being at t1 knows that "t1 is now". However, when t2 comes around, God cannot know that "t1 is now", because "t2 is now". My opponent says my argument is complex, but it is extremely simple. God's knowledge, in time, is always changing, because facts about what occurs "now" are always changing. Con hasn't even come close to refuting this, and both of his arguments are fallacious and based on flawed premises that can be easily shown to be false or flawed.The resolution has been established. Source[1] http://www.debate.org...