""God, as seen through the eyes of the biblical account cannot exist."

" Keep in mind I never said that I agreed with your definition of omniscience. I simply argued from the definition you gave of omniscience. When I speak of omniscience I define it as, God can do anything that does not go against His nature to do." Are you confusing the words omniscience and omnipotence? And anyone can do anything that does not go against their nature, their limits are part of their nature. Therefore, by your definition everyone is omnipotent. The Bible however speaks as though omnipotence is a special characteristic, which would be incompatible with your definition. So, ironically enough, I'm using the bible's definition, and you, the Christian, are not: " Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.Matthew 19:26 " ALL THINGS. This is, again, unequivocal. "For example, He cannot lie. He cannot sin." The Bible indeed makes these claims. Yet another point for me. A God who cannot lie, and cannot sin, is not a God with which "ALL THINGS" are possible. A contradiction cannot exist in reality. "He cannot tempt or be tempted. " I thought the bible claimed he created everything? This would mean he also created Satan (since the Bible claims such a figure exists), and therefore created the capacity within Satan to tempt, which happened to tempt Satan quite a bit :D). "By the way that you defined omniscience God can do anything he wants." Again, omnipotence, not omniscience :D. But I believe you are a fan of Greek roots? The root "Omni" means all. And I didn't make this definition: http://www.answers.com... and the Bible's statement too implies it, stating ALL THINGS are possible for him. " "Your reasoning is circular because of the way you define omniscient. You say an omniscient being can do anything, yet he cannot work outside logic according to you" Circular? Do you even know what a circular argument is? That's not one of them. A circular argument is an argument whose premises are identical to the conclusion. In any case, it is by definition impossible to work outside logic, working outside logic means a thing has no identity, i.e. does not exist. The argument is to show that the definition of omnipotent is therefore incoherent (and therefore not realizable in reality). It is not I who say God is omnipotent, it's known as REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, the bible makes that claim, in the form of the definition (all things possible to it) rather than in the form of the word omnipotent. The fact that his being omnipotent is incompatible with his being unable to work outside logic IS THE WHOLE POINT! That is why the argument arrives at a CONTRADICTION. E.g., if one believes the premises, x is necessarily both true and untrue, which is impossible. Since we know logic works (or this computer wouldn't,) the premise that must, necessarily, be discarded is the existence of an omnipotent being. "But you setting logic as a boundary, by your definition of omniscient, makes omniscience impossible." This argument, again, is about OMNIPOTENCE. Omniscience was a separate issue. And that is the WHOLE POINT. It is, by the definition (the bible's definition, not "mine," IMPOSSIBLE. The bible furnishes the means for it's own disproof. "Therefore you contradict your own definition of omniscience." Not my definition. The Bible contradicts it's own definition of omniscience, my argument's bring the bible's to their necessary contradiction. THE WHOLE POINT is that I bring out a contradiction. That is, again, how reductio ad absurdum works. If you admit the contradiction inherent in the symbolic argument, you admit that it's premises must be checked, that one of them is NECESSARILY wrong. "I also believe that God created logic and works inside it." Impossible, because he (the God of the Bible) clearly isn't compatible with it. This is the God of the BIBLE as such, not the God you've altered from it, that is relevant. "The Bible describes a God with limitations in His divine character." And also, as above noted, describes one without limitations. It does BOTH. It wants to HAVE ITS CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. Above all, it CONTRADICTS ITSELF! You are GIVING ME MY POINTS. "You see the Bible does not describe omnipotence as you do," I already quoted the bible's description of omnipotence precisely as I describe it. Go ahead, claim it doesn't really say that :d. " Again, you are the one that say that this universe is governed by logic however your interpretation of this passage is totally illogical." How so? "When I read poetry I want to know what motivated the writer," What do your wants, wishes, hopes, desires, WHIMS, have to do with what is logical? "There is a logic which governs biblical interpretation" No, there is only one logic, which governs all identification, biblical or otherwise. "yet you have ignored the context of the passage, the genre, the writer, the history of the write, all of which have to do with how we understand the intended meaning of the passage." Because I am paying attention to the LOGIC, i.e., the EXACT MEANING of that phrase. The phrase was not context dependent. Arguing about the writer is just ad hominem, and the rest too is irrelevant. "You could say that God was a chicken based on Genesis one if you took the spirit of the lord hovering of the waters literally. " That's a point for me. The resolution of the debate, again, speaks of "Eyes," i.e. organs which only interpret things literally. :D. " I see what your saying in regards to causality. However, it is possible for God, who is biblically omniscient to know all of the mathematical possibilities for a potential choice." Which is irrelevant, because he still doesn't, still CAN'T, know for CERTAIN (not probabilistically, but certain) the event which does not yet have a truth value. Because it is still "Something," anything whose understanding is "infinite," lacking limits "Psalm 147:4,5 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. must necessarily know it, but because the word "Know" is not applicable to it, it must necessarily also not, therefore, such an infinite understanding cannot exist. "He can know what will happen yet still have no hand in its cause" Ignoratio elenchi. I did not, I repeat, claim his hand in it's cause (though the bible does, as shown earlier). " "The fact remains that if a thing is knowable as a certainty, there is no choice left about it." Correct in matters of physics and science, incorrect in matters of metaphysics or the human heart. " How so? What governs physics except metaphysics? What governs the human heart ( a blood-pumping vessel) except physics? :D "Probability is always knowable in matters of human choice however certainty is not, there is too many variables. " This does not prove your above claim, since my claim was conditional on "IF A THING IS KNOWABLE AS A CERTAINTY." It does however prove my claim, since the bible claims that ALL THINGS are knowable, at least to God, including certainty in matters of human choice. " For the record, the book is called Revelation, there is only one." Did not know that. Neither, apparently, do a lot of quote repositories. "First, this is not what the verse says." Translations do vary. " " And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lamb slain from the disruption of the world." Revelation 13:8" Which has WHAT practical difference? Scroll or book, it still declares who you are worshipping is dependent on it. Continued in comments.