Omniscience and omnipotence

1. "When speaking of Omniscience and Omnipotence, we had best stick to deities. Human behaviors have no place in such an argument, lest we fall back into the old idea that just because one has knowledge of an event, that does not means one causes the event. " Here, Con attempts to argue that my analogy of human potency and scienter to divine omnipotence and omniscience is meant to somehow exonerate an omnipotent and omniscient God from the consequences of such God's actions. I did not make such an argument. My argument was very specifically limited to the fact that an omnipotent being, capable of foreseeing all possible consequences of an action, may have the power to bring any or all such consequences about but may choose not to. This was a direct counterpoint to Con's argument that a being could not be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient based on Con's assertion that omnipotence would destroy or limit omniscience. It was not an exoneration of the deity for acting as it did. 2. "Could not an Omniscient or Omnipotent god just as easily be a bad guy as a good guy? In the old days, most gods were considered nasty beings and required sacrifices to keep them at bay. " Here, Con is arguing omni-excellence, not omnipotence and omniscience, as a paradox. Moreover, Con is arguing that polytheistic divinities, and not necessarily omnipotent and omniscient divinities, somehow reflect upon a hypothetical omnipotent and omniscient divinity. I admit to having some difficulty following this logic. Con appears to be arguing that an omni-excellent being has a duty to do what is good, and should create an existence that supports what is good. The problem here is that Con has made an argument that "human behaviors" "have no place" in our debate. Human behaviors include "doing good. " If I take Con at his word, Con has argued in a manner that he himself has claimed should not be done. However, it might be interesting to entertain the merits of the overall argument here. Con is claiming, in a fairly circuitous manner, that (a) God knows everything and is all powerful, (b) God is all good, and (c) yet suffering exists and (d) sometimes the suffering has been attributed to God. This is a decent argument against omni-excellence, but not a real argument against my proofs for an omnipotent and omniscient God. Let's none-the-less consider if there might be a response in support of omni-excellence that doesn't rely on absurdest fantasy (in the logical, as opposed to the hypothetical sense). The first thing we must assume is that God is argued to be omni-excellent: i. e. God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. The second thing we must realize is that, despite the presence of a limitlessly powerful, all-knowing and all-good God, we are left to suffer and die. Indeed, let me be terrifyingly direct and note that in the embrace of this all-loving super-being we are left to be raped, murdered, skinned alive, set alight, bullied, deceived, tortured and enslaved. How can this logically come to pass? One argument is to suggest that, if we also accept doctrinal claims that we are truly spiritual beings of infinite durability, this world may have been created by God to allow such beings to experience a less than ideal existence in order to better understand and love God. This is not totally without merit. It is conceivable that spiritual beings cognizant of God might deign to enter a world of suffering, from which they are usually spared, in order to better perceive why and how they should be grateful for their otherwise blissful existences. Indeed, this entire experience could be a simulation for our amusement, that God, being all-good, would have counseled us against, but, being all-loving and super-supportive, would have allowed us to indulge in. Personally, I think it might be a little bit overkill, but it is at least an argument. It's only problem is that it begs the question, why did not God make (or remake) us so that we wouldn't be so stupid as to create a world of limitless suffering? If we assume that we were not made by God, but rather came into being at roughly the same time, an argument could be made that we were not remade, and were subsequently indulged in our masochistic request, out of God's "good" respect for the integrity of our free will. Assuming all of these very peculiar circumstances, omni-excellence might not be precluded. In any event, the fact that omnipotent actualization (up to and including to the point of predestination) does not preclude omniscience shows that the paradox suggested by Con is false. God can be logically all powerful and all knowing. He could even, theoretically, and under *very* strange circumstances, be all good, despite suffering. Thank you for the debate, PacFrank! I see it was your first, and a heady subject at that! God-heady even. Heh - well, that pun certainly wasn't divine, but the arguments were!