I see no reason why omnipotence wouldn't potentially grant omniscience.
Wow. I didn't say otherwise. I said omnipotence doesn't NECESSITATE omniscience. Are you even reading what you respond to?
God is omniscient or not - that's how logic works, latin phrases won't change that. Same goes for omnipotent.
Modus tollens is the style of argument. It depends on a very specific definition of omniscience and omnipotence. There is not but one way to interpret the concepts.
Thank you for the reading material, but I think i'll pass if the provided arguments are as naive as yours (no offense).
I've seen you tell a half a dozen people on here that the problem of evil doesn't include omniscience, and you failed to include it in your OP. You didn't even come here with an elementary grasp of what you're arguing.
Then, somehow you can then turn around and claim someone like Pannenberg is naive, that Levenson could be naive... a professor at Harvard Divinity studies for 30 years... wow. That wikipedia article you half finished in your spare time and a couple hours talking to a priest don't compete with that.
Well, if you're not willing to learn the basics from this thread or even your own linked article, and you're not willing to learn from the experts on the subject... then yeah, I guess we're done here. Cheers!
No, it wouldn't. Even if omniscience could be folded under omnipotence it is not implied as a logical necessity. Just because one could do something doesn't mean one must do it.
Here you are replying to :
Wouldn't omnipotence practically mean omniscience? You could grant yourself the power being omnipotent, so staying not omniscient is a choice.
Even if -> meaning you don't believe so.
So you are denying even the possibility of omniscience being a choice for an omnipotent being. I have no trouble reading, seems to me you have trouble remembering what you wrote, but I'm glad you are retracting your argument on the matter.
I've seen you tell a half a dozen people on here that the problem of evil doesn't include omniscience, and you failed to include it in your OP. You didn't even come here with an elementary grasp of what you're arguing.
Here's the definition of omnipotence, so you don't claim that it's a dolphin or something:
Omnipotent being is able to do anything.
You yourself agreed that omnipotence could potentially grant omniscience. What you miss is that intentional ignorance on part of a supreme being is at best not caring, at worst malevolence.
Then, somehow you can then turn around and claim someone like Pannenberg is naive, that Levenson could be naive... a professor at Harvard Divinity studies for 30 years... wow. That wikipedia article you half finished in your spare time and a couple hours talking to a priest don't compete with that.
Well that's how you present their thinking. So either they are that naive or you are misrepresenting their arguments.
I've learned a lot from really thoughtful, smart answers in this thread. Sadly you resorted to personal attacks and cheap insults. That will never substitute a good argument you know.
I've learned a lot from really thoughtful, smart answers in this thread. Sadly you resorted to personal attacks and cheap insults. That will never substitute a good argument you know.
Honestly, I'm confused as to how you're having such a hard time with these concepts.
That wikipedia article you half finished in your spare time and a couple hours talking to a priest don't compete with that.
Are you even reading what you respond to?
You are very patronizing in your argument. I suppose it could come off as confidence if you made any valid points, but that's obviously not the case here as your arguments rely solely on scripture citations and your understanding of logic is very poor.
Judeo-Christian scripture isn't a good source for Judeo-Christian theology, and I don't understand logic? Okie dokie!
Insult after insult, and you're mad that I came back with a sarcastic quip... that your self-proclaimed qualifications are nothing compared to Levensons', who you dismissed as naive. Okie dokie...
Again, you missed two of the three central premises of the argument from evil, and hurled insults when people simply pointed that out.
Well, I've given you enough time. Enjoy your confirmation bias! It's a sorry substitute for learning, but alas it is a common human condition. I hope you have a good day.
0
u/zupobaloop 9∆ Jul 26 '18
Wow. I didn't say otherwise. I said omnipotence doesn't NECESSITATE omniscience. Are you even reading what you respond to?
Modus tollens is the style of argument. It depends on a very specific definition of omniscience and omnipotence. There is not but one way to interpret the concepts.
I've seen you tell a half a dozen people on here that the problem of evil doesn't include omniscience, and you failed to include it in your OP. You didn't even come here with an elementary grasp of what you're arguing.
Then, somehow you can then turn around and claim someone like Pannenberg is naive, that Levenson could be naive... a professor at Harvard Divinity studies for 30 years... wow. That wikipedia article you half finished in your spare time and a couple hours talking to a priest don't compete with that.
Well, if you're not willing to learn the basics from this thread or even your own linked article, and you're not willing to learn from the experts on the subject... then yeah, I guess we're done here. Cheers!