God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient

Prima Facie PlausibilityI only conceded prima facie plausibility of the resolution being false if we assume that the set of "everything that there is to know" necessarily does not change (I talked about prima facie plausibility before I mentioned my argument about the changing set, as sort of a build up). However, since there is no reason to believe that is the case that the set of "everything there is to know" does not change necessarily, then it is prima facie possible that it changes. Since this is the case, then it is prima facie possible that members can be added to the set and God could gain that new piece of knowledge ever time it happens and still know everything there is to know at any point in time. Therefore, the resolution is prima facie true; not the other way around. I only granted my opponent prima facie plausibility before bringing the possibility of a changing set of "everything there is to know" into the equation. Ergo, I do not grant my opponent prima facie plausibility regarding the resolution, only in a certain context before actually explaining my argument. Straw-ManMy argument is not the argument Con syllogized in his last round. Attacking that argument would be a potential straw-man. Assuming God Is In TimeI don't need to assume God is in time, I only need assume that it is possible. After all, there isn't any explicit contradiction in an omniscient being existing in time, so it seems perfectly logically possible. All I assume is that it is possible that an omniscient being exists in time, and if this being exists in time, it is possible that he can gain knowledge while being omniscient. In Modal logic, "possibly possible" = possible". Thus, I don't actually have to assume God exists in time in the actual world for my argument to work, only that it is possible, and if that is possible, then it is possible for God to gain knowledge while being omniscient. My opponent has to argue that it is a contradiction for God to exist in time, because if it is even possible, then my argument remains that God can gain knowledge while being omniscient. Gaining Knowledge"If I know that tomorrow I will eat a cheeseburger, and then tomorrow I do eat a cheeseburger, have I gained new knowledge? Not really"When you actually eat the cheeseburger, you gain new knowledge about what is happening now, that you didn't have 5 minutes ago. So, you say "not really", I say "absolutely"! Basically, in time, the "now" moment is always changing. This means, that for each "now" moment, there are a different set of facts that go with it. Since there are different facts regarding each "now" moment, then the only way God can remain omniscient in time is if he gains knowledge. For example, lets say it is 7:00pm now....There are a set of facts that go along with this "now" point at 7:00pm that aren't the same set of facts that go along with what is going on at the "now" point in an hour at 8:00pm. For instance, I am not watching The Big Bang Theory 7:00pm now, but at 8:00pm, I will be. It will be "now" at that time at 8:00pm though, but there will be a brand new set of facts regarding the states off affairs that go on pertaining to that "now" point. So, because there are a different set of facts that go along with each "now" point, then the only way God can know what is going on "now" is if he trades in knowledge. He must gain knowledge about each set of facts attached to this moment, and ditch the set of facts associated with the last one, a moment ago. Therefore, if God exists in time, which seems entirely possible, then he necessarily gains knowledge if he is omniscient. This is because he must lose knowledge about what is happening "now", and gain knowledge about what is happening "now" every moment, as there are a new set of facts associated with any "now" moment a human decides to arbitrarily point out. To sum up, it is possible that the set of "everything there is to know" is always losing and gaining members, because it is possible that God is in time, and in order for God to know everything there is to know in time, it follows necessarily that he is always losing and gaining knowledge (as there are different facts for each "now" moment), and is still omniscient as defined in this debate. All of my opponent's rebuttals to my arguments fail. Argument 1 From ConThe only quarrel I have with this is:P2: "If God is inside of time, he cannot gain knowledge."I already disproved this in my rebuttal to my opponent's last round. God necessarily gains knowledge if he is time, because the facts regarding what is going on "now" are always being thrown out and replaced. "If the thing itself changed, then God would have to go from not knowing something to knowing it. This doesn't happen." If God is in time, this necessarily happens. With regards to my previous example, God does not know at 7:00pm that "Now, I am watching The Big Bang Theory", as it would be impossible to know, however, when 8:00pm comes around, God knows "Now, I am watching The Big Bang Theory". So if God exists in time, and is omniscient, then he necessarily goes from NOT KNOWING that "Now, I am watching The Big Bang Theory" to KNOWING that "now, I am watching The Big Bang Theory". Therefore, God necessarily gains knowledge if he is omniscient, and exists within time. My opponent is confused, because while it is true that God always knew that I was going to watch The Big Bang Theory at 8:00pm, he didn't always know that "Now, I am watching The Big Bang Theory". God cannot know that until 8:00pm, but he always knows everything within the set of "everything there is to know". Therefore, it doesn't matter if God gains or loses knowledge, he can still always be omniscient. Argument 2 From ConThis is the worst argument from Con, unfortunately. There is absolutely no reason to think an omniscient being cannot lose knowledge. An omniscient being only has to know "everything there is to know" to be omniscient. Therefore, if the set of "everything there is to know" loses a fact, then it follows necessarily that God loses knowledge. However, throughout all of that, this omniscient being would still, by definition, know everything there is to know. Thus, there is no problem in an omniscient being gaining or losing knowledge. Not in the least bit. ConclusionI have shown that the resolution is extremely plausible prima facie, and that the negation of the resolution is extremely implausible prima facie. I also demonstrated why my arguments do not rest on the assumption that God exists in time in the actual world, and why my opponent actually has to show that God is timeless (which he failed to do). Thirdly, I rebutted every single objection Con had to my argument as they were based on misconceptions, so, as it stands, my arguments remain completely unscathed. My opponent's first argument fails,because it assumes that just because God always knows what I will go at 8:00pm, that it means that when 8:00pm rolls around, he gains no knew knowledge. This is false, because he gains knew knowledge about what is happening "now", because the facts associated with each "now" point are new facts! His second argument fails because there is no problem with God losing knowledge while being omniscient. This is because God is omniscient as long as he knows all facts in the set of "everything there is to know", at all times. If there are facts that escape this set of "everything there is to know", then God must lose that knowledge, because it would be false knowledge (the facts pertaining to each "now" point are never the same). In conclusion, my arguments clearly withstand my opponent's objections. However, his arguments cannot with stand mine as they are inherently flawed. The resolution has clearly been established.