Oats
Member
I've come to the conclusion through several conversations and debates that there cannot be one Omnipotent being and one Omniscient being
If a being is Omnipotent he of course would have the power to do all things intrinsically. This being would be perfect in his nature due to the fact if he wasn't perfect then he could not fully do everything because Omnipotence requires complete perfection.
For instance--
If A was Omnipotent he could do {i}-- which is to say the intrinsically possible things in this universe.
Now if this being is Omnipotent he would have had to been/is/will be Eternal
If A is {f}-- finite, then he would have had to have a beginning -- Omnipotence cannot begin to exist because something would have had to cause it which would make it subject to time. He could not do anything to further push back his beginning which would make him limited.
If A is/will be/been eternal -- all events are before him. His Eternal nature would've been essential to itself because it is a part of him. (I can elaborate on this)
Now if A was imperfect he would've always been so. Which would make that imperfection it's Nature. If that is his nature than how can it be considered imperfect? Compared to what? Perfection only works in comparison. To you're whole knowledge. If he knew something he could not change then he would not be omnipotent.
Now Omnipotent beings have in their power to do all things. In order to do somethings you must know how to do it...correct? It is in his nature. To know all things because he can do all things. He would've had to been the cause for the Universe because he is the initial reason.
So the Omnipotent being knows/knew/will know all things because they are all from him.
So A = Omniscience
----
If B is an Omniscient being then he knows how to do all things. Knowledge can be acquired three ways.
Example
Experience
Naturally
Now of course an Omniscient being cannot be taught by anyone. So he would've not been created because you can't teach Omnipotence it has to be your nature. To truly know something is to experience and to be in a relationship with it's very essence. By that logic if God is (and he is) Omniscient he has the power to do all things he knows because they are in his nature.
Omniscience = Omnipotence
----
Now on to a point I feel should be made. If this Universe is at all real and it is. Then it has to have a reason or a cause. Every cause has a reason by its nature. Even if it was random,which would then make it imperfect, the cause would have had to have an uncaused Creator, who would have to be perfect.
The Atheist community has always used the law of averages as a piece of evidence towards the Big Bang
If the Law is perfect then it would have to be self aware and essential to everything. The law of Averages is imperfect because it isn't eternal. If so then all possible things would've occurred and we wouldn't be here. The law of averages is not solid because it becomes its own undoing.
As for matter existing before the "big bang" this is faulty because matter cannot be void, if it is then it is not matter but an idea, if not an idea, then the matter would've had to been dimensional, even at the most minute degree-- Therefore making it substance. It would've had to have size,weight, length width, and the inevitable mass.
We would be remiss to think that it was just sitting there.
-------------
If someone can systematically refute this I would appreciate it-- If there are any errors in grammar please excuse me, I had to pull an all nighter.
If a being is Omnipotent he of course would have the power to do all things intrinsically. This being would be perfect in his nature due to the fact if he wasn't perfect then he could not fully do everything because Omnipotence requires complete perfection.
For instance--
If A was Omnipotent he could do {i}-- which is to say the intrinsically possible things in this universe.
Now if this being is Omnipotent he would have had to been/is/will be Eternal
If A is {f}-- finite, then he would have had to have a beginning -- Omnipotence cannot begin to exist because something would have had to cause it which would make it subject to time. He could not do anything to further push back his beginning which would make him limited.
If A is/will be/been eternal -- all events are before him. His Eternal nature would've been essential to itself because it is a part of him. (I can elaborate on this)
Now if A was imperfect he would've always been so. Which would make that imperfection it's Nature. If that is his nature than how can it be considered imperfect? Compared to what? Perfection only works in comparison. To you're whole knowledge. If he knew something he could not change then he would not be omnipotent.
Now Omnipotent beings have in their power to do all things. In order to do somethings you must know how to do it...correct? It is in his nature. To know all things because he can do all things. He would've had to been the cause for the Universe because he is the initial reason.
So the Omnipotent being knows/knew/will know all things because they are all from him.
So A = Omniscience
----
If B is an Omniscient being then he knows how to do all things. Knowledge can be acquired three ways.
Example
Experience
Naturally
Now of course an Omniscient being cannot be taught by anyone. So he would've not been created because you can't teach Omnipotence it has to be your nature. To truly know something is to experience and to be in a relationship with it's very essence. By that logic if God is (and he is) Omniscient he has the power to do all things he knows because they are in his nature.
Omniscience = Omnipotence
----
Now on to a point I feel should be made. If this Universe is at all real and it is. Then it has to have a reason or a cause. Every cause has a reason by its nature. Even if it was random,which would then make it imperfect, the cause would have had to have an uncaused Creator, who would have to be perfect.
The Atheist community has always used the law of averages as a piece of evidence towards the Big Bang
If the Law is perfect then it would have to be self aware and essential to everything. The law of Averages is imperfect because it isn't eternal. If so then all possible things would've occurred and we wouldn't be here. The law of averages is not solid because it becomes its own undoing.
As for matter existing before the "big bang" this is faulty because matter cannot be void, if it is then it is not matter but an idea, if not an idea, then the matter would've had to been dimensional, even at the most minute degree-- Therefore making it substance. It would've had to have size,weight, length width, and the inevitable mass.
We would be remiss to think that it was just sitting there.
-------------
If someone can systematically refute this I would appreciate it-- If there are any errors in grammar please excuse me, I had to pull an all nighter.