Kohlrak

You give me 2 examples. Before we start talking about this, we need to understand that Greek philosophy, at this point in time, was viewed with so much reverence, it was considered to be just as true as modern scientific theories. Given that Jesus was not exactly in a position (for more reasons than one) to tell us where these things are flawed, it makes sense that he would threaten use Hades in his parables: hence the rich man and Lazarus. As for the three quotes (which is actually one, just one passage), it clearly is a reference to Hades, yet again. It is not inconceivable that these people appropriated greek philosophy to their interpretations of scripture. It is in Revelations that a place quite different from the greeks (the Lake of Fire), and even that seems to be symbolic, at best. Consistently throughout the new testament fire is used to describe removal of impurities, which, once again, is not unlike greek philosophy, however I would imagine it's natural to see fire this way (notice how we say "kill it with fire" for things we find repulsive). Were you not bothered or, at least, intrigued by John the Baptist suggesting that Jesus with cleanse him with the Holy Spirit and fire? Revelations stating that the lake of fire is eternal torment could support the "separation from God" theory, but it seems to make more sense, given the context, that that was one of the things that got changed in the constant translating, retranscription, etc, that we know happened. For the new testament, we know there were lots of differences in versions of the same scripture, but, given the situation (early Christians weren't exactly welcome, and they and their writings were frequently destroyed [Do you realize that we only have 4 of 11 gospels?]), it is understandable. The only way to view the new testament is by not nitpicking words, but viewing everything with the understanding that some things are going to be inaccurate and you have to look at the bigger picture. Me, personally, i think it makes most sense to see the lake of fire as representing a second death, which means to destroy the soul. Is tax still charity? These things must all be decided by the people. Fortunately for rational thinkers, Jesus seldom spoke literally. I'm quite sure he did indeed mean that removal of body parts was better than defying God. However, we don't have writing about how an honorable group of people took his advice literally, right? It's because He expects us to have better control of our faculties than to need to be physically forced to no longer sin. By the logic you propose, it is better to commit suicide than to risk sinning again, is it not? But, then again, suicide is a sin, right? Where is the line drawn, why, and how do we know He feels that way? Of all things Jesus has addressed, you'd think this would not only be among them, but among the most important things, no? There's two ways I could respond. I could respond in agreement that God does not need them, and I could respond that, perhaps, God simply likes those attributes? Naturally, God would be amorphous, and i cannot resist the urge to point out that everyone's well within the realm of understanding the idea that supernatural beings could be anything from amorphous to shape shifters and what not. Do not trinitarians believe that God came in the form of a dove? Or what about the burning bush? We could go on for a while. When God is the only absolute we could compare to (given that we would also then believe that He created the other animals which we compare ourselves to), we can't really nit-pick at the endless possibilities and ask "why does He need THAT form?" We don't know. We, honestly, don't care to. Whether God has a preference for that form, or He happens to be the universe itself, or if He's a blob that appears human when he feels like walking past Moses, who knows and who cares? On a humorous note, I immediately thought of Hermaeus Mora. The decision to say that humans are the most representative is based on the assumption that humans existed before He chose to declare us so? Instead, it seems more rational (and consistent) that we are most representative of God simply because that's the very purpose of our being. For any other explanation I would indeed go as far as to say that it is arrogance to the degree of being a sin. That is not to say that we don't have a second purpose, but the fact that we were "made in His image" implies that the basis for our existence is to fulfill that role. This totally disregards that Genesis, or any other religion's equivalent (should it even have one), is more than mere parable. I would say that the average mainstream religion believer prefers to find comfort in this idea that all life was created in His image (hence, dog heave, cat heave, etc). Humans being arrogant doesn't mean their ideas are illogical. I'm sorry, but this isn't an argument. Not hedonism, but nihilism. Many would argue otherwise, that if we advance enough, maybe we could solve the problems of universal entropy and the like. I, personally, don't, but many would. This is a bit of a spin, but i think this is why the left believes that economy influences behavior: if "God is dead," then the thing separating us from nihilism is a belief in a better future for our offspring, but if our economic or social situation implies we can never improve, then you become fairly nihilistic fairly quickly, which devolves to hedonism, which is pure, utter waste of resources (which the ruling class then cannot use to fuel their own hedonism). That's not to say that religious people don't have their own excuses for hedonism ("eh, Jesus will forgive me for this," "allah is OK with me taking this women, as I will make them holy again," "meh, i can focus on ascension next time I get reincarnated, as i've already screwed up this life," etc), but nihilism guarantees it (else, suicide).

accidental double post, will try to delete EDIT: cannot delete post

By that standard, free will exists in every society, inevitably. Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of punishment. While the church threatens us with hell, neither God nor Jesus threatened us with Hell. We were told of the concept (and even still, whether or not Jesus supported the idea of Hell instead of simple death is questionable). The moment you use threats, coercion, and/or force to manipulate someone, you're trying to remove their free will. It's one thing to present choices and outcomes for those choices, it's something else entirely to make threats and make good on those threats. Presumably, if Hell is to exist, it's better than to simply cease to exist (by standards we just don't have the context for, but it assumes Hell exists). That's another interesting angle on it. Not sure that really solves the logic issue, though. Issue being, if the future already exists, it cannot be changed, else it's not the future. I think what this really boils down to is that if the future exists already, then we believe in fate and determinism. I can already see a conflict in Stefan waiting to rise. But him aside, that really is what Stefan's argument boils down to. If you can know the future, that means it's already determined, which means you are then powerless to change it, since it's already determined. Therefore, one also cannot be non-deterministic while believing in the future as a concurrently existing thing. If you really delve into it, it seems less likely that we're deterministic, as well, which just adds to the idea that time probably does not exist outside of the human mind. Do me a favor and point me a little closer. This idea has been gaining alot of traction, lately. However, at this point, God as we describe Him would be an inaccurate definition of this, while this would be a plausible explanation for everything other than events. A self-defining entity? I'm responding to both at the same time. Abstraction is the word. The "reference pointer" implies to me that you'd have a computing background. All programming languages above assembly are abstractions, and, as such, are existing proof that such words are important and useful. They loose their use when specifics are required, but outside of specifics, abstractions are important and useful. Otherwise, every thing in our universe down to each and every atom would require individual and unique names. I think this is fundamentally why language is so important: we can make abstractions of the world around that are simple enough for us to manipulate in our minds and communicate information about, but the abstractions don't include all the details of the object, thus when more specific details are necessary, we need more abstracted terms or to reproduce the object in question. Abstractions themselves do not exist, but the things they reference often do. For example, "time" is an abstraction of causality. I would argue that time does not exist, but causality does. The problem with abstractions is that, usually, the details that are lost can easily become necessary, but they often become lost. For example, if time does not exist, but causality does, the logic we built around time explains causality, but in so far as our logic is concerned, the existence of what we think of when we think of time presents logical errors with the universe around us. Our abstractions can gain qualities that the object or effect that they reference did not actually have. Rather, people change their definition because they believe the thing they're referencing exists, but they don't know the details, because they know the abstraction (the word) with more experience than the thing it references. If i change my description, it just means it's probably more accurate than it was before. They can have other abstractions as well that act as evidence to the person that the abstraction of God exists, but that doesn't mean that the thing they're imagining is right. I could tell you all about my car, for example, and you would know alot about it and know it exists, but if someone were to ask you to describe it, you would fail to describe the details that I have not told you. Actually, we change descriptions of things all the time. God is not unique in this, but, rather, God is the thing that meets the most skepticism when the changes are noticed. For example, T-rex's definition changed numerous times. We discovered it, defined it, and now we can't decide if it was a hunter or a scavenger. Yet, we don't question that the T-Rex existed. In fact, we're still trying to define gravity. We know objects of smaller mass are drawn closer to objects of larger mass, yet the universe is spreading apart, and we can't explain why either thing is true. We don't question these, though. Frankly, unlike other things, God is fairly inconvenient for people, especially nihilists, which seem to make up the majority of the atheist cultists (as opposed to atheists themselves, though it might be the majority of them, too).

There's a difference between what is possible for us and what is possible for other beings. I do understand this to be the separation between normal and miracle. If something is not possible, it's not a miracle, but a lie. Nature itself, must have the supernatural. You could argue that that which makes nature have it's rules and that it's consistent is another natural law, rather than something superior to nature (supernatural), but at that point we would be declaring God a natural phenomena, which is merely redefining words. When i get around to making my post on occam's razor (after this one is concluded), that's actually the stance i plan on taking, anyway, as it is the more logical route. Occam's razor's status has a small fault in it. I hate to defend multiverse theory, but, logically, just because something is more likely doesn't make it so. Hence why "argument from authority" is illogical. Merely, a doctor is more likely to be right about a medical issue, but that doesn't mean he is, simply because he has more education. Occam's razor is basically an answer to the space teapot issue. Multiverse is just the new "turtles all the way down." IMO, given the issues with it, the staunch support of it over it is merely because it provides the potential excuse for nihilism. However, arguing motivation does not argue for or against it's validity, but rather it's support in contrast to other explanations. Well, this is where we stand. Instead of building all our knowledge assuming He does exist, or any other explanation, we should probably focus on that, first, since everything we know will crumble if we pick the wrong one. Mathematically, since there's more than one, we already have *at least 50% chance of failure (technically 0% or 100%, no matter how many theories, but that's a topic for another discussion). Anyway, in the absence of His presence, PM me your questions and I will see if I can come up with some explanations on His behalf. Mine might not be right, but I'm willing to take a shot at it. I wouldn't dare. God is an explanation for things, a potential intelligent entity, and a number of other things. Math, while sometimes made into a religion (Euclideans notoriously), but, in reality, it is something that we know does not exist outside of the human mind. It is a method, just like building a car, writing, etc, for which we can accomplish things. The main purpose of math being the simplification of our universe, so that properties of our universe that we deem to be important can be identified and separated from the universe itself for the purpose of manipulation (manual). "Three" does not exist, yet "three" is how many pillows do exist on my bed. Language is another tool that attempts to do the same thing, but, being much, much more complex, doesn't work out as consistently as math. "Pillow" does not exist, merely those qualities which we understand from the name represent the objects on my bed. Notice, you have no clue whether or not they are covered, what they look like, or what condition they are in. Humans will always be victim to this, lest mind melding become real. Even then, memory loss before mind meld would perpetuate the issue to some degree. But, i digress. My point is simply that we've arrogantly elevated a method and stopped questioning things simply because we have. Not to say thiis is an issue with math, but this exercise will show the issues with humans and their processing of math. Firstly, take conventional decimal math and divide one by nine. What is your result? Continue this for all digits up to, and including, nine itself. I am semi-certain that you've heard of this before, and there's a logical explanation, but many people have a very difficult time swallowing it. It is not a weakness of math, but of the human mind to cope with the reality of the method that they have created. Some people use this as evidence for God, but even I must admit that simply blaming God for all unknowns is irresponsible. The fact that we even pursue science in the west is because of Christianity, and, as such, it would be totally irresponsible and disrespectful to God to not try to explain Him away. However, if we're going to cook up a contrary idea, we should at least do a good job. Our job would be to make the most intelligent answer for the unknown, not simply make ideas just because. If we're explaining something we know to be by using something we don't know to be, we're just blaming God, but calling Him something entirely different, and unintelligent on top of it all. You, however, did suggest that causal relationship where the past and future do not exist is quite possible. Meaning, you did agree with me at one point that the universe can exist without time, so long as a continuous, causal present exists. Now you're saying something different. If you have not changed your stance, given the topic at hand, as well as the conventional definition, i would suggest we avoid referring to it as time, since clearly the definition is different from the conventional, thus our idea would immediately loose meaning to others. Free speech is necessary for the propagation of free thought, which is necessary for free will. Not directly, but over time.

Historically it has had people executed for speaking anything contrary to doctrine. That is possible, but my understanding is that would imply God is lesser than the laws of physics. He would no longer be sovereign over the rest of the universe, but instead just another creature. I'm not willing to ignore the possibility, but then would we even be able to continue to describe Him as "God?" So far, though, most of the "miracles" do indeed seem to be possible with a greater understanding of physics, psychology, etc. Parting the waters would be pretty interesting to explain, though. That is your choice, but i, personally, recommend that you seek the truth rather than cling to an idea if evidence or logic flies directly in the face of it. Just because you believe it is the most successful and distinguished idea man has ever had does not mean it is true. We can have lots of good ideas, but that doesn't mean they're true, but, rather, that we're trying. Reality doesn't care what we try. I see no evidence for multiverse theory. But, let me get this straight, then. Your argument is that because the mutliverse theory is a new idea and well thought out, we should simply choose that over another conflicting theory that was well thought out? What exactly are you trying to suggest? My suggestion is simple: when existence doesn't seem to be predicated on life and intelligence, yet it inevitably happened, it seems reasonable to suggest that there was already intelligence out there. Sure, it's not necessary to believe so, but it's most certainly reasonable. I would argue that someone who is dedicated at explaining away the existence of an intelligent creator would very much be wishful in the idea of multiple universes, as that creates alot of openings to explain away everything, even if the entire theory is predicated on things that we can't really establish as real that we suggest we can establish, such as time. Human kind is making a grave mistaking by assuming certain things exist, without any evidence, and then attempting to base future theories and ideas upon it. Human beings are fairly consistent when something like this happens (see the catholic chuch) in that when the foundation of so many thoughts and ideas is questioned, people die. No matter how reasonable an idea may be (multiverse), if it is based upon assumption only, it is no different from another idea (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc) that is based entirely upon assumption (God exists). We never answered the fundemental question (does God exist?) we just have two entirely different camps who assume their answer is true and move on from there, which leads issues when the basis for those ideas is questioned, since if you destroy the roots of a tree, the whole thing comes crashing down. The real irony is to assume one camp is wishful thinking, when both camps are doing the exact same thing with no more or less evidence than the other. So we got rid of God and replaced Him with math. The real irony being that math is also a fairly old religion. It is nothing more than a method through which man simplifies the universe such that it's properties can be understood by the simpler mind. The very nature of math is to remove details, because one cannot understand anything more complicated than itself, else the understanding alone makes him more complicated than that which he studies. So, math, is a useful tool. Yet, math itself does not lend itself to religion or countering religion, but, rather, math is being used as a basis for an explanation existing solely to counter another idea. Don't get me wrong, it is entirely important to explore other ideas and come up with explanations that could topple other explanations (then using evidence and reason we can conclude which is truth), but to elevate it over the older theory simply because it is contrary, is the very definition of wishful thinking. Do we have any reason to believe multiverse theory, right now, other than "It explains things without using the word 'God'?" Do we have any reason and evidence to support it, or is it just the convenient explanation of the day? I do find it ironic that you start by agreeing with me that time as an axis probably does not exist, yet you seem to have 180ed. If i may ask, what has changed your mind? What new evidence or logic are you not telling us that has changed it? EDIT: It's worse than wishful thinking, now that i put more thought into it: we're trying to use it to explain gravity, etc, but all we would be doing is introducing more laws of the universe for which we're seeking explanation. Therefore, it fails to even accomplish it's goal (explaining why things are), therefore it exists simply to fly in the face of an explanation (regardless of how improbable anyone feels it is, but science and reality are not a consensus, nor is there any place for emotion regarding it).

Depends on what you mean by "supernatural tricks." What we are capable of coming to know is also unknown. Does the mind have potential to be read if technology were to progress far enough? What is and is not supernatural cannot be known, only guessed upon. We know certain things most assuredly cannot be, but there are many unknowns. He can't know what He cannot know, and He cannot use tricks that are not in His disposal, however that doesn't mean much. If we were to look at the christian God, He appears to have a rough idea who someone is, but either does not know individuals' thoughts or plays stupid to them until they choose to state them. Consistently throughout the bible He is reasoned with. I would presume not: being as, since He would be omnipotent, He would not be bound by natural laws, and presumably would have created said laws (supposing that He is not nature itself [which is another idea of mine which i used to tackle occam's razor: what if the universe itself is intelligent, and that is what we describe and know as God?]). We sort of have properties of this universe and we don't really know how or why they must be. We try to use math, but math is based on our understanding of things to begin with. I argue that, while math is valid, we tend to make assumptions based on math: for example, we can measure chains of events, thus we assume time exists. We can measure the distance between two points, but that does not mean that the axis that we created for measurement exists, but, rather, a mere construct in our mind to simplify that which does exist so that we can comprehend it (rather, we understand simplifications [properties] of objects, rather than the objects themselves). I don't believe the universe has any dimensions, while quantum physics seems to suggest many, or even infinite, dimensions. Both theories basically try to solve the time traveling paradox in their own ways: i suggest time does not exist, therefore not traversable, while multiverse theory suggests that it can happen because it creates a new branch of the universe. God seems way more logical in the no-dimension theory than the multiverse theory. I think it is safe to say that that was not part of His plan. If anything, it was part of His plan that we would split the church to stop it, so that our conflicting ideas could be discussed without human totalitarians slowing us down. Notice that we don't have a book in the bible where the church was given such powers, or given a declared human ruler, etc. Catholicism grew way outside of its jurisdiction. While Catholicism has provided alot of benefit to christianity, it has damaged it as well. I see no reason to accept the actions of the catholic church as doctrine, and even if we were to say the bible encompasses the entirety of christianity, as there's no real support for their totalitarian authority. I would argue (thanks to Stefan's talk which enlightened me) that the church turned into quite the opposite: that God's objective is freewill and free thought. Jesus' primary message was the role of individuals, rather than seeing yourself as a community, and that individual ideas become community ideas.

Yep, this is precisely it. And i'll elaborate more directly. Omniscient would have to be only knowing that which is possible to know. To know more than what is possible to know is, by definition, impossible, thus cannot be expected to be included in the definition. Donnadogsoth's point is one of many ideas, which may or may not also be part reasons rather than the entire reason. Another way to look at it would be that dependence upon Him would result if He were to be constantly making Himself known. If your primary objective is to have people who believe you exist, yes, then this would be setup for failure. If, however, Stefan's conclusion on Jesus were to be right, that it is more about individual growth and potential, then it makes perfect sense to get out only enough information as necessary to make sure the knowledge of you and your ideals are out there, so as to prevent people constantly making demands of you trying to reason away your actual objectives, much like when a student plays dumb and says the test is too difficult and therefore unfair, even if all the knowledge necessary for them to get every question right was presented to them. If God makes Himself known every hour on the hour, people would try to negotiate with him. However, if He does not, only those willing to follow Him without making negotiations will follow. The reason this is important is that there will be fewer followers if He appears indifferent, rather than a stoic outside force that only intervenes when His plan is directly threatened. If, however, the plan of God is to create free thinkers He, clearly, did a good job. Even if He is not as believed today as before, if your objective is to expand the number of free thinkers, then handing ideas to humans and having them write these ideas down and not stopping them from writing conflicting accounts definitely generates a lot of debate in your community of worshipers. I'm just wondering, myself, if His end all game would be to see if people can still follow the book and admit where it is wrong, yet still have faith in Him, but without being blind to reality. But, that's just my theory, which is only one of many. To shorten my response, it only makes sense to say that it sets Him up for failure if his primary objective is believers in Him, rather than His ideals. The bible itself shows people who believe in God, but do not follow His ideals do not end up well, while people who do not believe in Him, yet follow His ideals, end up well off (or at least revered). We're meant to make disciples, which i understand to be more than "believe this guy exists, or else." I think that got lost in the totalitarian part of christian history, however.

Sorry for not posting for so long: it's been a long week. Presumably that would be how God could be omniscient, or at least see clear plans for the future: He knows because of causality. His predictions are almost always very, very long term, and also seem to have Himself in the equation. So, without any other logical opposition, can it then be said that the explanation makes sense and thus it is not illogical to believe in a god that would be omniscient and omnipotent? Or, at the very least, omnipotent but smarter than us? The main reason I signed up here, is because Stefan seems logical, and since he owns the place, it seems like a good place to wrestle with ideas and show that, even if i cannot prove God exists, I can at least show that it is not illogical. At some point I'd like to discuss Occam's razor. I think it would require some mental gymnastics to make God the logical conclusion, but if I can at least get the belief in God equally likely as atheism (even in the face of Occam's Razor) maybe things can settle down a little bit. My job as a christian isn't to force convert everyone, but settle the road blocks. I believe that if I can get rid of this misconception that a belief of God is illogical, the rest will fall into place. And we can see what happens when people have an excuse to be nihilists, even if atheism has an answer, once you throw out religion it's easier to ignore that answer. EDIT: I do need to clarify, though, that as a Christian, I am obligated to the truth. So if I'm full of it, either i need to find a new solution to the problem or admit that my own religion collapsed on itself, then find a solution to the religion. I haven't seen any good reason outside of a few arguments, so far, that would suggest that the latter is a smart option. Stefan's argument in the original post is probably one of the best i've seen, but then it opens up to the floor being removed: why do we go straight for God before going for time?

With the snow changing the landscape of the mountain.

By that logic any time an action is taken something meets it's own end and a new beginning exists for something else.

Jesus would argue that his rules did change to some degree, but it's easier to argue on another level: His actions have taken a different course because of man's intervening words. And you are arguing as much. That is very much changing His mind. His rules aren't the only thing in His mind.

Being outside of time while implying time exists means something doesn't need an origin, since origins would only exist as a result of time. I'm simply asking why something must be unchanging to be aeternal. You claim that unchanging is a necessary quality of being aeternal, so i want to know how you came to that conclusion.

Would this not then be traveling through alternative realities, as opposed to time? Right, measurement being a property that does not exist outside of us assigning things. I argue, however, that the present exists, but only the present exists. If time doesn't exist, the present could still exist. It is merely the past and future which cannot exist without time. Christianity has described a God whose mind is quite changeable. He will say one thing, then someone would attempt to reason with him, then a different result would occur. This is change. The same could easily be said about the multi-verse theory making up the first reply to this post. Goal-post moving seems to be par for the course on both sides. By denying the existence of time itself (as opposed to sequential events), I hope to be changing that.

I really need to make a post on Occam's razor once i don't need to be approved by a moderator constantly. First off, why does unchanging present a conflict with aeternality? Don't get me wrong, i'm a theist, but i fail to see how that's logical. It'd be cool if it were, though, as that'd be a great argument for my side. However, i don't see the logic. Please enlighten us.

Well, at least bottom level government officials who typically do stand up for the citizenry are good, for once. I'm curious, though, how well government would do if more people were aware of the Milgram Experiment.

I want to take this slightly deeper: she is going to have that and many imperfections. It really just comes down to "what imperfections can i deal with?" Remember that you have your own imperfections, but also remember what you're signing up for. Me, personally, if i have a particular imperfection, i cannot expect my significant other not to have, or, at least, not have it at a lesser degree (since if they have the same imperfection to a greater degree, such as i have abandoned and action and she has not, then i am clearly better in that regard). You will have to understand that if you look at things objectively (through your own standards), you will inevitably either be better than them, or self-loathing. Now, affections for someone often cloud that, however you choose the way you are because that's what you think is the best way to be, and same with everyone else. So, if someone is better than you in your eyes, you will adopt their thinking and abandon your own (unlikely, so you'll more realistically find something you don't like in them that's not true of you, or you'll come up with an excuse to yourself why you're the exception). This doesn't mean you should throw yourself away nor does that mean that no one is good enough for you.. It means that settling down with someone is indeed inevitably settling for someone. So, what are you willing to deal with? EDIT: To be fair, since you're a male buying a female, she also has divorce laws counting against her, which is where your problem is. While you admit that you're dangerous, you're afraid she's dangerous to you for the same reasons. However, she's more dangerous because of divorce laws, child support, etc. This is how women have hurt themselves with feminism.

These schools must've started up somehow, so why is there not one for those who are not religious? Surely, the demand is there. If one does not exist, what prevents a new one from starting? Instead of resigning oneself to something you do not believe in, you should take a realistic approach to the problem. Enumerate the challenges here, where there are like-minded people, and perhaps the methods of achieving your goal will be laid out before you.

This would end fairly quickly if he would have cited passages which point this post to be part of Christianity. Either there's some gross misinterpretation going on, or these arguments are not within the confines of Christianity. We're going down a fairly buddhist path. I will admit, though, God is indeed a jerk. But, that's cool. There's a certain aspect of required humility here: a creator always has less responsibility than the created, otherwise our actions as humans in video games, as well as our removal of outdated technology would be morally wrong. At the very least, shutting down AI projects that are not working to our liking would be murder or genocide. Jesus makes God look reasonable, but Judaism makes him look fairly scary, as does Islam. Arguably, Jesus shows us that God has a purpose for us and that sin is a sign that we are too buggy (to use the analogy) to fulfill that purpose, but He argues that our runtime code can be changed on the fly. There is no reason to assume that this "purpose" is what Christians typically suggest, which is that it's to "win more people over." We're not really being told the end game, but rather only the details that are currently relevant to us.

Stefan Molyneux, in one of his books, makes the claim that the Gods of old are logically impossible, because omnipotence and omniscience, he argues, cannot co-exist within the same entity. The argument is that with omniscience, you must therefore know the future, and therefore it is unchangeable. Being unchangeable, then, means you do not have the power to change it, meaning you cannot be omnipotent. There are a few issues though. First and foremost, the Judeo-Christian God, for example, can be reasoned with and have His mind changed, which means He is either not omniscient to begin with, and/or He can be informed by information that does not yet exist which, since it does not yet exist. To argue the former is simple: the texts of various religions are admitted written by people and thus certain details can be excusably inconsistent (like the christian gospels) or wrong, simply because religious texts are more or less writings from the perspectives of individuals about their experiences, scientific findings, philosophies, parables, etc, rather than infallible resources (despite arguments from a particular religious to the otherwise, since, usually, authors of religious texts will often admit they're not perfect orators nor perfect at all [see Moses, for example]). The latter case is much, much more important to make: that all that there is to know does not yet exist, therefore cannot be a breaking factor for omniscience. The basis for this argument comes from the illogical assumption that time exists: for the future to be known, we must first establish that the past and present already exist. The issue with time itself, however, lies with a paradox. If time itself exists, it must be traversable: and if you can traverse forward, then you must be able to traverse backwards, unless by anything traversing forwards everything then is forced forwards and the past ceases to exist, which is illogical, since if the future exists, then everything is already forced forward since it is something. Thus, for it to exist, it must ultimately be traversable both ways. Now, if it is traversable both ways, then you run into an issue where something could be sent back in time that prevents it's own ability the ability to traverse time (by preventing time travel and/or it's origins). Should this happen, then the starting point (which is in the future) cannot be bent to send it into the past. If time is not somehow traversable, then it must not exist. Time, I argue, is a concept made by man to measure changes and events, just like man can measure the separation of two or more objects. However, just like numbers are an abstraction that do not exist (the representations and concepts exist, but the subject of both does not), time also does not exist, nor do the X, Y, and Z axes, etc. Sorry if this is difficult to follow, i had this argument saved in a file some time ago, but I have lost the file and I'm trying to type it quickly. The long short of the argument is that the time traveler paradox is a case (or disproof) against the existence of time, which means that knowledge of past and future is not a requirement of omniscience, therefore the ability to change the future is not an existing power to be included in the term of omnipotence, thus omniscience and omnipotence can co-exist. Given the issues of disposing religion, it would seem worth it to try to find logical reasons to adopt it, particularly where logic and reason are not enough alone to adopt universally preferable behavior. I would also argue that there is still quite the possibility that a God does exist, until we know for certain that it is impossible, the same rigor should be given to finding the truth, as opposed to simply forming a consensus on reality like the left attempts to do.